benjii

lol - that old chestnut.

Do you really, really believe they haven't crunched the numbers and done some analysis on this? Do you really, really believe that such analysis won't be a bit more sophisticated than your self-centred back-of-a-fag-packet gut-feeling approach?

But you only joined in June ?

So when you previously said that paying £400 in one hit was nothing to you and wouldn't affect you renewing you were lying?

Agree completely. Unfortunately instead of discussion you get a few loud mouths banging their one-note drum over and over.

Are there tickets available in League One that cost more than any Saints ticket? Yes there are. It is grossly simplistic (which, in your case, is quite fitting) to therefore say "Saints have the most expensive tickets".) Yes, it is. Why won't you just admit you're upset because you can't afford a season ticket in one hit and you're having a little strop?

What were you on about when you said "pro-rata" then? No, I don't agree. Please just go away. Everyone finds you to be a tiresome numpty. Do you now agree you're a tiresome numpty?

Probably about ten people IMO and half of those are clandestine-ITK-toy-throwing-nappy-wetting-SFC-duvet-cover-owning-one-issue-weirdos.

Hope you get banned soon. If you want to "pro-rata" it (whatever you mean by that - I assume you mean the average price of a ticket across all league games?).... Do we have the most expensive STs? No. Liar. Do one. :vuvu:

Spiders are pretty: Well, some of them are horrendous but that one's alright.

Pick your toys up.

Yeah, I mean shaking a fence could be part of a threat to use violent behaviour. If you are shouting, "come on you kaaaannntss let's ave it" then you might just be being gobby. If you are shouting that whilst apparently trying to circumvent blocades which exist for the express purpose of preventing violence then it is going to be somewhat easier to convince a court you were threatening violence. The message is clear - if you are in a mob and being lairy in front of a big crowd of police, you're asking for trouble.

There's bound to be a decent race meet somewhere. The horses is a cracking day out. If you want to have a decent day at Wimbledon watching the tennis in the second week rather than the big screen you will need to be in the queue by about 08:00 at the very latest (ideally earlier). This is because the plum matches will be on Courts 18, 12 and 3 and they will fill up quickly. You won't be able to get show court tickets unless you camp out or get there uber-early. Unless you're all into tennis and prepared to put some effort in I wouldn't bother. Having said that, if it's just about the craic and you go on Monday then the entire 4th round is played so (assuming he wins today) you could watch Murray, Fed and Nadal on the hill and there's ample opportunity to get the jars in in the sunshine (£4+ a pint, mind) as well as perv at fit lasses. There will also be some girls matches being played on the lesser courts and some of the Russians/yanks etc are massively ****some. A girls' doubles match up close with four blond hardbodies is quite a thing. Failing that, you could try a medieval fort or a Victorian folly.

I haven't looked into what actually did or didn't happen in court as I don't really care. Based on some comments on here though it would seem that Violent Disorder is the charge the people were mostly found guilty of. Here's the law on violent disorder: 2.-(1) Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder. (2) It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. (3) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to. be, present at the scene. (4) Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places. (5) A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both. So, clearly for anyone to have been convicted of this it would have been necessary for the Crown to show that they used or threatened unlawful violence. I don't think shaking a fence would suffice. It's also interesting to note that the maximum sentence is 5 years and a fine. So they could have been given more. As a final point, you cannot whinge about being banged up if you decide to go ape in the presence of most members of the county's police force and they are openly filming you.

Bart needs to improve his kicking dramatically if he is ever going to play consistently at a decent level. If he can do that he could be an excellent keeper. At the moment Davis is a much better all-round option.

It's nothing like a "pre-pack" administration. A pre-pack administration is when you agree a sale in advance of administration, enter administration and then complete on the sale immediately.

Ding dong

:vuvu:

Why don't you **** off then? You won't be missed.

She most certainly did not you spacko. Why don't you go back to worsening the lives of all those who have the misfortune to actually interract physically with you?

Jim Brennan has a very fit wife who is available for hire if I recall correctly.

What on earth are you talking about? Unethical?!

Doubt it. They did a zero interest scheme administered by themselves, right? That is incredible. What a deal! Of course it came with associated admin costs. If you believe that by not doing it you won't see a decrease in ticket revenue then you would be mad to continue it. Clearly the club feels that is the case. That is why they have made this decision. When they talk about not offering the scheme because of costs they are clearly bang on. If a sizeable proportion of our ST holders used it then I doubt they would have cancelled it. Who has access to the relevant figures? SFC or StuRetardSaint? Yes, they could approach some third party finance provider. You claim that has no cost. I find this very unlikely. Of course it has costs - if not direct charges made by the finance company then associated administration and management time. Anyway, they are not beholden to fans to offer this. If fans want to buy a season ticket using third party debt finance they are perfectly at liberty to do so. Our STs are tremendous value. If you don't want to go to 14 or more games then don't get one. If you want one but can't afford one then tough luck. Add it to the list. Clearly a commercial decision has been made. You won't know if it was the right one until you see the financials at the end of the season. You might never see them, so you might never know. Now go and find something else to do.

Anyone just see that? Wonder if Kim will drop a nuke on Garry Crisps?

Haven't read the link but the fact that when I did my GCSEs the "Additional Maths" paper was a former O-Level paper and contained most of the first year of A-Level pure maths would suggest to me (apart from the predictable year-on-year improvements) that they are clearly easier than they used to be.