John B

Because Austin is injury prone need to get someone else in I would have thought

Scotland can leave the UK and get a good deal with regard to the single market without being in the EU

Harry Kane may have suffered a repeat of the ankle injury that kept him out for five Premier League games earlier this season, his Tottenham manager Mauricio Pochettino fears.

Why would you bring in Carceras for Stephens have you seen him play this month and do you know his fitness level

Who?

How do you ship out players who are on contract to SFC if they do not want to go.

Sat we a Man U fan watching the game he thought they we lucky so do I I thought we played really well if a couple of things had gone our way we may have won.

Of course we want a fair system for every child but that does not happen under the Tory's I will show you what I am talking about later.

I dont blame you but it just means that the Tories get in is that what people want. May is continuing to ignore warnings of an unprecedented funding crisis in the NHS that is leaving no capacity to undertake the medium-term reform needed to make the health service sustainable. She has presided over cuts to social care funding that mean a quarter fewer older people are getting state support with their care needs. Schools in some areas are facing real-term cuts of up to 17% in their pupil funding in the run up to 2020, while the government is expending political capital on defending its planned expansion of grammar schools, which evidence shows will worsen, not improve, social mobility. In prisons, a lack of sentencing reform and staff cuts have left prisons dangerously overcrowded and understaffed. The government is cutting funding for back-to-work support for the long-term unemployed, including the disabled, by a staggering three-quarters from March. Reforms to local government funding mean councils in poorer areas have had to cut back local services 10 times as much as in more affluent areas. And Philip Hammond has enthusiastically embraced the Osbornomics of his predecessor, continuing to provide tax cuts for big businesses and more affluent families, while cutting tax credit support for low-income working families and increasing business rates for many high-street small businesses. Labour’s opposition in absentia is clearing the decks for May to firmly pitch herself on Labour’s territory, by claiming the Conservatives are now the party that represents ordinary working people. She is facing little scrutiny over the fact that this rhetoric is undermined by much of what her government is doing.

The EU Freedom of Movement of workers into the UK has been a major success – despite the spin and deception surrounding these rights. However, by failing to demonstrate control, successive UK Governments have invited criticism – to the point that it was used by the Leave campaign as a representation of how the EU has lost control of it’s borders. The FoM directive allows for the “old” countries to restrict the rights of migrants from “new” countries for up to 7 years. The powers vary from stopping migration completely or allowing only for selected categories of work on a work permit basis. IN 2004 THE UK CHOSE NOT TO USE THIS POWER AT ALL. One of the sharpest rises in net migration came in 2004, when the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. The UK was one of only 3 of the original EU members (UK, Sweden and Eire) to choose not to apply transitional restrictions on these eight countries. In contrast Germany and Austria kept the transitional restrictions in place for a full seven years. Other countries kept restrictions for between 2-5 years and the Netherlands reserved the right to impose further restrictions if there were ever more than 22,000 migrants in a year. By not implementing the restrictions the UK invited the surge of migration. They could have avoided the surge and the enormous bad press that accompanied it if they so chose. The FoM directive is clear. The directive enables Member States to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Article 35 of the directive expressly grants Member States the power, in the event of abuse or fraud, to withdraw any right conferred by the directive. The Migrant could be removed from the UK as well as prosecuted for Fraud. The UK have not used this power – ever. As the UK does not know or track how many migrants are using the welfare system in this way then it is unable to even try to exercise this power. Other EU members insist on migrants proving that they can support themselves. For example Belgium requires all migrants to prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing. Whilst the FoM directive is now widely blamed for an “unacceptable burden” (Theresa May) the problem would seem to be more one of lack of control by the UK Government rather than “Benefit Tourism” by migrants. After 3 months in the UK EU migrants need to be either working, have a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have full sickness insurance). If not then they can be returned to their home country. The UK does not register migrants as they arrive and as such has no way of knowing how long they have been in the UK. There are no efforts to track or control this movement *. This once more allows the EU-skeptics to portray the FoM as “uncontrolled migration”. In contrast Belgium requires all migrants to register at their Town Hall within 3 months of entering the country and if they intend to work their claim will be assessed and will be processed within 6 months. During this time they can reside in Belgium provided they can prove they have sufficient funds, health insurance and suitable housing. If permission is granted they will be issued with a Foreigners ID card. Only after 5 years of legal and continuous residence in Belgium will EU/EEA and Swiss citizens automatically acquire the right to permanent residence in Belgium (residence card E+) It is not the FoM that causes the lack of control in migration it is the UK Government themselves. As part of the pre-referendum renegotiation, Mr Cameron secured a further power. This “emergency brake/Red Card” mechanism would allow any EU country whose welfare system has come under strain, as the result of an influx of EU migrants of ‘an exceptional magnitude’, to restrict access to certain kinds of welfare benefits. This power was lost once the UK voted Leave in the June Referendum. To summarize it was the UK’s choice to not implement a 7 year partial or full migrant break in order to prepare for fresh immigration from new EU countries, almost all other countries did so. Even with that failure, considerable EU powers already exist to manage migration. It is legally possible to register & track all immigrants, ensure they are entirely financially and medically self supporting, prevent and/or prosecute benefit fraud and return home any migrants who are not economically active. Furthermore, Cameron secured an “emergency brake” to suspend Welfare Payments to migrants if necessary – powers which are now lost. Other EU countries use these powers which might explain their reluctance to fix something that is not broken. It is entirely likely that we are leaving the EU in part because successive UK governments have failed to understand or have been unwilling to use these significant existing powers.

Please can you explain how Les has messed up if a number of deals fell through because of injury and reasons out of SFC's control. We dont want to get in players who in the long term are not going to be good aquisitions for the club . A Cup Final and a top 10 finish is hardly a failure with a young squad a new manager out of form strikers and injuries to key players VVD Austin and Boufel

I dont think Les norsed up but I do think that Long and Jrod norsed up in the first half of the season by failing to score many goals and Les is not a clairvoyant as he did not realise that Austin would be badly injured. As the club plays with only one striker having Long Jrod and Austin was sufficient I would have thought. With regard to Fonte yes it would have been great to get a replacement but if no suitable one was available the club decided they would go to end of the season with VVD Yoshi Stephens and Gardos which has got us to Wembley and will probably get us a top 10 finish which I think is reasonable. There is no point in getting players in if they are not in the long term going to significantly improve the team like Gabby is probably going to do

What a load of old Tosh

Very true but I feel players like JWP Yoshi Cedric have probably improved but we have had injuries to our influential players like Austin Boufel and now VVD. What with goals being missed it has not been the most lucky of seasons but we have done well in the Cup getting to Wembley after beating four Premier League teams I always doubted that a team can continually improve but I think it will next season if we can get a CB and top class AM and keep VVD

I dont understand why it is a cockup it is unfortunate that VVD is injured but getting in any old CB is not a solution We will just have to grin and bear it and hope for the best- injuries and bad luck happen that is football If our important players Boufel Austin and VVD get injured we are not going to have a successful season but that said if we finish in the top ten and perform well at Wembley it will be one of our best seasons ever.

How is it a balls up if there are no decent CBs available who want to come to SFC?

Perhaps he was helping his knackered and injured players and thinking of the big picture we do have another two games next week which we have a chance of winning

I think Yoshi Romeu and Tadic need a rest maybe Gardos Reed

We have not yet conceded a goal in the EFL this season A pretty nervy last 20 mins though

As usual your post is nonsense and inaccurate and appears to be based on raw emotion and little intellectual understanding During the campaign, it was not made abundantly clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the single market. Although Boris Johnson said UK will 'still have access to single market’ despite Brexit http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway. https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/ There is the likelihood that the standard of living will fall post Brexit as the increase in inflation indicates with today Heineken and Carlsberg follow makers of Carling and Budweiser in hiking cost of their beers in face of weak pound you may not drink but I do I agree that Cameron and Osborne made their positions untenable through their shrill warnings of dire consequences but that was a continuation of the failed austerity policy which thanks to Brexit has changed slightly. Economists' did not forecast of doom they forecasted that the fall in the pound would lead to inflation interest rises and loss of jobs which is happening https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/25/brexit-economy-weak-pound-inflation-jobs-market By the way where is all that money for the NHS another Brexit lie “I have never used the £350million figure myself because I don’t accept it,” say Jeremy Hunt The Tory Party does not always do what is best for the country it usually does what is best for the Tory Party for instance it only had the Refendum to appease its right wing We now have a PM who is so desperate to hold on to an unelected position she is being dominated by failures with axes to grind. Duncan Smith the most pathetic Tory leader in history who believes anything he thinks is right and is untruthful Liam Fox whose expenses claims and morals are dubious to say the least, David Davies who failed his leadership campaign. And has been sulking ever since Not forgetting Boris who'd sell his grandmother for a top job. It's no wonder this lot don't want scrutiny! I think Parliament should ensure this Brexit doesn't end up in the country falling to utter ****, and be given the chance to see and hear of any deal and vote on whether it would work or not, and you just want full balls-to-the wall 'yes Theresa i'm your gimp and you can do whatever you like and I won't say a word about it' mentality?

Most people dont want the Government to pass laws without scrutiny by Parliament that is acting as a dictatorship the Referendum Bill was badly formulated by a weak and arrogant PM who assumed that the UK would stay in the EU. Nothing was in the Bill relating to what events would happen after a Leave vote as it was only advisory and the result could have been ignored but the ruling from the Supreme Court sets out what should happen next. Only a fool would allow a government to do what ever it wanted to do with Brexit because it is the most important event to be discussed in Parliament since the Second World War and is going to take a long time a lot of money and a lot of debate to make certain that people like you and me have the same standard of living with decent jobs that we have had in the recent past. Although in likelihood the standard of living after Brexit is going to less than it would have been if we had not left the EU but with luck now that Parliament is involved it is not going to be bad as described by George Osborne and David Cameron in Project Fear If there had been no court action and Brexit was passed on Royal Prerogative Governments could pass other controversial legislation without the scrutiny of Parliament Brexit is going to happen but the final settlement needs to be agreed by Parliament to be in the best interest of the country and its people and not in the best interests of the right wing of the Tory Party many of which want to cut the rights of the British worker in order to give more profit to their donors.

And was the longest game I ever saw at Dell after terry Curran scored after about 10mins

If Mrs May had not appealed the case Article 50 could have been passed probably Dont you think it is a good idea for us to have the best Brexit as nobody who voted leave had an idea of all the ramifications that would be entailed.

I dont think Man U have ever beaten us at Wembley but I have seen Saints beat Man U at Wembley so there is always a chance

He is one of the fastest defenders in the country http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-leagues-20-fastest-players-9135788 Like all players he gets better with regular games and no doubt will improve further