Lord Duckhunter

I agree, gave up my Season Ticket because I can only really make Saturday games, and there were more and more Sun games, particulary in Premierhip and a lot of midweek games when we got relegated. If we were playing Donny on Easter Saturday and not Skates I would be there. I've had to text round mates asking for 2 extra tickets . I had no trouble getting them, but that's beside the point. Most of the ST holders thought it was a bit strange, and some have had work collagues or mates who dont normally bother to go, pestering them already for tickets. Seems a strange thing to do, particulary as they seemed to discourage ST sales preseason. I guess it's just a simple and cheap option, with the added benefit of extra ST sales next season, I'm defo starting to think about getting my lad and me one and taking the hit or selling them on/giving them to family, for midweek/sun games.

This is a great idea, should use it more often in my opinion. Was going to go to Barnsley, but struggle to make midweek games so may not make Ipswich. Will defo do this even if I cant make Ipswich,£27 is worth paying to make the last game of the season. I'm not going to miss out on a potential celebration of promotion, just the the sake of £27

I just got a "good point" , but was so quick to post I forgot to use my Pompey name. Just posted as Storrie-Teller offering to help as well.

It was more a question of "what oath do you want to take"? rather than "Do you want to use a bible". We have moved on and I'm sure more and more people will not want to use the bible. In my case I thought ,"this book is meaningless to me, so swearing an oath on it is pointless"

They dont, I was a witness in a crown court case 2 years ago, and I was asked if I wanted to before I went in the box. I was given some sort of card, which I read from. It had nothing about god on it. I cant quite remember all the details, because it was a nasty case of racially aggravated assault that I had witnessed and I was ****ting myself. It was the worst 45 mins of my life.

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?