Smirking_Saint

Nonetheless its headline making and vote turning. The tories arent doing enough, and Camerons decision not to debate doesnt help.

Nothing professional, did a bit for Saints community when I was younger, coached for a kids coaching company for a bit, now I coach Saturday league. Read a lot though, watch a lot of coaching stuff so I enjoy it more than anything. Id love to go into professional coaching and had opportunity but theres no real money there unless you're very lucky. For those reasons I really admired what Poch brought to the team.

If he was consistantly doing this all season we'd still be battling for a top 4 spot IMO. Unfortunately he went off the boil after christmas. Hopefully he kicks on now and finishes the season well

Every cloud

In fact it is the same people isnt it, its the same jumper So its obviously just been made up

Yeah I can agree with that, Koeman allows a bit more of a risk to his game, where as Poch was possession for possessions sake, as you would expect from a follower of Bielsa. I loved watching Poch, as a coach myself the effort that must of gone into that training is breathtaking, you cant play a high press without effective 'triggers' it was a joy.

They look like the same people

There isnt a lot of difference between how we set up under poch and how we set up under koeman IMO. The main being that poch employed a high press and Koeman prefers better defensive organisation.

Thank you

Not a lot that can be argued if they can pull it off

So Lou and Goatboy, is this what you get up to after your football meets ? http://sick.smilesumo.com/76-year-old-expelled-from-kfc-for-breastfeeding-her-42-year-old-son/

Its an entirely different system to be honest, I still stand by my comment that if you are going to spend that sort of money (fee and wages) on a striker that will expect to start you are going to want him to fit the way we play.

Who let them use the nippers ? Enjoyable run out, sorry about the moaning about the midfield

Whatever your thoughts on the current government (and IMO you are going well over the top pap) I am a keen believer to not look at incidents at their own value, but looking for a route cause. Of course austerity has been hard (and of course there are always winners too) but a lot was necessary, who is to say a labour period of austerity would be any less painless ? Things had to happen to tackle the defecit, a deficit exacerbated by a 'spend, spend, spend' labour tenure that really brought us into the mire.

It was spend spend spend and a lack of regulation of the banks too, lets not gloss over the points, the economy fell apart under their watch, thats an irrefutable fact Im afraid. As per the IFS' analysis of the tories plans this is the IFS that show that labour wish to borrow a further 90 billion in order to achieve their plans.

Whats the alternative a vote for a labour I fail to trust with the purse strings ? They effectively got us into this mess in the first place, would Labour have done any better at all ? Very doubtful

No idea, though Id imagine they are being careful with the housing market, too many new houses would reduce house prices, which could cause issues with private investment and possibly inflation, im just speculating though Id hold my hands up and say Im no economist. As for opening up brownbekt land, no idea. That said its difficult investing in housing whilst tackling a deficit

Just open up brownbelt land for a time and get some houses built, itll provide more supply and help with local jobs. Whats not to like about that ? Tenants should be able to have the security of longer tenancy contracts IMO, but I still dont think caps will work as such

Exactly, it works twofold 1. Its an undecided vote winner 2. It avoids what the actual issue is

Which was done in order to keep them afloat and so to avoid making the catastrophe the happened not become apocalyptic. Its not a fair system, but its what we have and unfortunately capitalism works (it has its onvious failures) because wealth creation in turn creates more wealth creation, inmovation and delivery of service. You cant remove a banking system yet still keep money as motivation, who controls things then ? The only way to remove babks would be to create a system that means service and materials are paid via service and materials which would easily make the rich richer and more than likely kill the poor. If I have no materials and no skills to provide I service I have nothing. Those that own the materials would be infinately richer and the disparity between rich and poor would be a lot wider.

I agree with Tim Christ

Unfortunately I fear you are correct

But whats the alternative ? Part of my job is keeping the lights on for want of a better way of saying it by working in the power distribution industry. How do you plan to keep me providing that service without the banking system ?

With respect Pap, because I like you, this really needs its own thread as there is literally no point it being debated with here. Its just never going to work is it ? What do you propose we go to instead of the banking systems we use now ?

How do you propose the debt is written off ?