benjii

Well, I beg to differ as he seems to be a stupid person or dolt and he apparently got a degree in Economics and Economic History in 1968 (according to Wiki). Perhaps he is not a stupid person or dolt but he certainly comes across as one which I suggest is even more of an inglorious achievement than actually being one.

Back to the article.... he seems like a good bloke.

"A stupid person, or dolt." :confused:

Exactly. And he's as thick as pig ****. People like that shouldn't have power.

I can quite honestly say that a match against Bournemouth means no more or less to me than a match against Hartlepool, S****horpe or Carlisle, for example. Still, if we can help to brighten up their lives then that is a nice thing. As to the thread... don't give up. Huddersfield will drop points, let's make sure we don't.

No, but it has been suggested he was using it to launder blood money.

And I've just checked and he didn't go to Oxford University, (I'm not sure if you were suggesting he did), he went to Ruskin College, in Oxford which specialises in providing educational opportunities for adults with few or no qualifications.

Sorry, I'm supposed to believe Prescott isn't a moron simply because he once attended Oxford even though all available evidence since suggests he's a massive moron?

Tiresome, immature and petty. What a guy!

I discussed it in some depth with my boss. Fact.

Who gives a toss? Bankers are largely erudite, well educated and have the balls to take big decisions. I also suspect the background of most of Labour's front bench is similarly privileged. I'd certainly prefer that sort of person to morons like Prescott or the Trade Union nest-feathering ignorant luddites.

He is massively tiresome isn't he?

Can't believe that commentators have been praising him for that. If that impresses you, you're pretty simple-minded IMO.

Quite right, don't want the old gravy train getting derailed do we!?

Antonio started at Brighton. He's started every match apart from Orient at home since the final. Pucnheon is one of our best players and so it would be mad not to start him IMO.

Well, I'm not so sure. They could still quite conceivably lose to Colchester and if we win all our games that would take it down to the last game of the season where a draw at Exeter would not be enough for them. If we're 2-0 up and cruising and they're battling away at 0-0 anything could happen. Just a scenario, but I won't be lsing too much sleep if they win.

Yeah, I agree. We should all anguish. That'd be super-sweet.

Can't really see the point in that. If we're after a new stadium it should be 50k+ IMO. TBH, I will be happy if we're in the Premier League (sort of), as getting out of the Championship is not easy. Assuming we don't go up this year (although I think we might), your 5 years allows us: promotion next year two years in the CCC then two years to become a top 8 Prem Team That's quite a push.

Sorry, just seen this!

So you detest him? What an unpleasant person you are then.

Own goal was a freak. Are you saying that a missed penalty automatically means you played badly? So every player who's ever missed a penalty in a penalty shoot-out had a bad game? Stupid comment. Any player who's ever scored a freak own goal has played badly? His general play was excellent. He created Viafara's second goal with a great turn and pass and generally outplayed his defenders all night. We were by far the better team and he was an important part of it. If anyone should have been singled out as the scpaegoat for losing that tie it was Pele and not Best.

Well indeed. That's why there will be another points deduction. Football rules say you have to exit administration with a CVA. Football rules say you have to pay all footballing debts in full. General insolvency law stops you from preferring football creditors at the expense of other categories of the same class. So it's either: Pay everyone 100%, CVA, football debts paid in full, happy days. Pay football debts in full, don't get a CVA > points deduction. Get a CVA, don't pay football debts in full > potential withholding of golden share, but more likely a points deduction. At least, that's what I think the rules say. Either way, I think the football creditor's rule is stupid.

Well actually it doesn't at all as Employment Tribunals are not binding on each other. The Employment Appeals Tribunal is binding though so it would be interesting to see if this is appealed.

Clegg has been by far the best "performer" IMO (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way).

He played well and he's a good player. With regards to your final sentence, I guess you just know less about football than people involved in it.