shurlock

Out of interest, do you have a complete picture of saints financial performance and more importantly valuation, including an understanding of valuation methods and changes over time; or is your knowledge largely limited to the costs of the Staplewood development?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, innit Jeff.

No. You said lots of savings.

The HT race with the huge blow up footballs might have the final straw for Steve. It was like watching the Zepellin burst into flames in mid-air. It was a thankless task after the thrills and spills of the half-time relay race. He can take pride and hope from the fact that many a sub warming up would cock a glance at his It's a Knock Out shenanigans.

You still don't get it. I've subsequently clarified the context in which I used the term, something youve chosen to ignore. Of course, you completely ignored the second paragraph of my original post that would have made that clear all along, so it doesn't surprise me. But hey it doesn't fit your bizarre rant that's got lost somewhere between your backside and dictionary corner, so I guess fill your boots, Les. I'll leave it there.

Thought you might have worked that out from the second sentence. It's the bemused and slightly condescending reference to just 'somebody else's money'. Just pointing out that the majority of the world's financial investments are made on this basis -and that role is neither trivial nor risk-free. Whether Cortese managed effectively the assets under his stewardship is another discussion. Illiteracy, as in commercial, financial, economic illiteracy. Literate enough to understand this all, Les?

No les, that's not the point.

Was does a champagne charlie with somebody else's money even mean? Its as illiterate as its melodramatic. Trillions and trillions in financial assets are managed on others behalf - that's how the real world works pal.

He destroyed them last season too.

Care to elaborate?

That's f**king awful -and being partly French I usually love a good subordinate clause.

Couldn't agree more.

Not really, pal. If you had watched Leicester etc, you'd have seen them play well and not get the results they deserved. Sunderland have played badly and got results that they haven't deserved e.g. Newcastle. As for Clasie and VVD, they had excellent games yesterday but have a very long way to go till they reach the heights they did in Holland (VVD's case is different). Many players have torn up the Eredivisie -Toivonen practically had a 1 goal in 2 game record as an AM- but have looked completely out of their depth here. Thankfully we've avoided those busts. Not too difficult to understand, is it?

Delph getting a 'warm' welcome.

This isn't the moral maze, you pompous plum.

Good day out. Embarrassingly easy, though just deserts for our previous with them. It's inly November and sunderland are deadmen walking. Not seen a performance like that in the prem since we put Reading to the sword in 2013. Clasie was excellent as was VVD, though Sunderland played into our hands. Thought they would get in our faces; but Gomes and Toivonen could neither press nor pass (Toivonen is another reminder of how woeful Dutch football is). At times, our midfield had 30 yards space to drive into if it had wanted. Clasie chose to fizz balls early to feet which had the same effect. By contrast, JWP did very little on a day that he should have shone. In all, Koeman's selection was spot on. Sets up nicely for Stoke and then a run of very tough games that will define whether we can knock on doors of 6th or are interchangeable with the rest of the saggy middle.

You mention other crimes; but it's not an either-or. LGBTs will be exposed to those risks in addition to the risk of experiencing a hate crime. The logical benchmark is the 1/8 chance of suffering a hate crime (at least, that's reported) and the infinitesimally slim chance the rest of us has of suffering one. However you cut it 1/8 -or once every 8 years is pretty high for something that's unlikely to be garden-variety abuse.

What do you mean day-to-day life? By definition, it's impossible to be a victim of a hate crime unless you're a member or perceived member of a prejudiced group -and the vast, vast majority of us aren't. If you're simply saying there's a 1/8 chance of being physically assaulted etc, I'd saying you're talking utter **** -never mind the statement being noncomparable (see below). If you're referring to abuse of some sort, I go back to my original point and remind you not to compare apples and pears since a hate crime requires an additional element of bias. Cue thick as pig **** helmets with web links to how white people can also be discriminated against and obviously how the numbers are massive in the UK.

Nope 1 in 8 is high risk. Assuming events are independent or even quasi-independent, it means many will have experienced some form of abuse during the course of their lives. Who knows how a hate crime is defined. However defined, I assume it's not a pleasant experience, so it only has to happen once for it to leave a mark. Assuming they are correct, the numbers speak for themselves. End of.

1 in 8 in a given year is pretty high risk. End of.

That's not the way it works with keepers.

Stunned about what, pal? Does saints membership give you a discount off match tickets and the megastore among other things? Oh right. It gives you your own monthly email newsletter.... and the pièce de résistance, the "announcement of which Saints star has collected the latest Player of the Month award". I hope you bought what is a footballing placebo. I'd rather flush money down the toilet.

Good one, though surprised the ball is so close to Longy's feet.

Jamie - however much you want a good row, pap ain't coming back. Alas you've made your bed, now you've got to lie in it.

She's a spoilt, little gob***** at that backwater of uncomformity, goldsmiths, ffs - for whom 'white men' is as much feminist code word for 'the system'. It's MOBOs season - isn't there already enough for helmets to get worked up about.