Minty

So if Reading's keeper has won the award, presumably for playing well(!), that suggests that their run of form hasn't been solely down to them playing brilliantly outfield...?

6 pages in and only one fake reply... not bad going. Shame some more of the regulars haven't contributed but I guess that is a step down the road to removing anonymity, which is of course an essential component of keyboard warriorism*. * - If this isn't a word, it should be.

35, born and raised in Hythe... always wanted to go to a game but dad never took me as he no longer went (despite going when he was a bit younger). So, first game wasn't until April 1994, 3-1 win vs Blackburn, Dowie, Paul Allen and MLT scored for us, Stuart Ripley with the sole reply for Blackburn. First away game - no idea, possibly the Reading FA Cup game at Elm Park where Benali and perhaps Robbie Slater were sent off???

And if you calmed down for a second and read my posts clearly, you would see that nowhere have I said any such thing. Nor have I claimed he is amazing. Or made any claim whatsoever actually. If someone had NO pace, NO skill an could not cross a ball then he wouldn't be able to create anything at all. He wouldn't even be a footballer. That is why what you said was just silly. This isn't even worth commenting on. So I'll say again: Why the need to have a polar view?

I can't actually believe this thread has made it this far. No workforce is 100% happy, but amongst the staff and players at SFC right now, it certainly seems about as 'together as one' as we've ever known it.

He may be over-rated by some, but you are equally as guilty of over-exaggeration given that he is currently NOT injured and creating a number of goals for Oxford using some skill and pace. Saying he has none is just silly. Why do people think that taking up polar opposite positions in any discussion of this kind, brings any value to the discussion. Or is it, as I suspect, just lazy baiting?

Seen a few tweets from players now saying we beat 'a strong' Spurs side 3-2 this afternoon... nothing on the OS yet, but will be interesting to see just how 'strong' the Spurs side was.

Spot on. It's quite clear that he has a public/interview persona and conducts himself differently (but still very professionally) in the dressing room (and even on the touchline as we saw on Saturday!).

These should be two separate discussions really. I agree with JRM above about Puncheon but that has nothing to do with Holmes. Holmes certainly was made of glass previously, so that's why it's interesting to see how he does performing week in and week out as he is now... so far so good, but a long way to go yet.

I wouldn't rule anything out with Holmes. If he is getting match fitness back, clearing providing quality at that level, and starting (still some way to go yet) that he is over his injury, then I wouldn't rule out a return for him, given his age and the fact he can still improve. To try and compare him to Puncheon at the moment is frankly a bit silly on many levels.

This thread clearly doesn't have everything - it doesn't have any news of a credible new owner or new source of finance for the Pompey. So, this thread will probably NEVER have *everything*.

For the record, I think the best thing for Pompey is to go to the wall and have to start again... it's like the Titanic down there and they need to build a new boat to stay afloat in (in more ways than one). But in the context of the question, with regards to guaranteed promotion or not as a result, then I'm still a B.

B for me.

Just means that the total value of the shares is £1. Pretty standard on setting up any Ltd company, one shareholder with one share, 'valued' at £1, because as a private, not public ltd company, then the value of the share means nothing.

Depends how many differently spelt versions of Qaeda they search for...

Don't go there, haven't done so since 2007 actually (March 28th to be exact, because it was the day my wife, then fiancee, flew to Namibia for 10 weeks and the first thing I did after saying goodbye was go downstairs in Terminal 3 at Heathrow and get a double cheeseburger!), but the thing that winds me up the most about them and some other FF outlets is the way they're trying to portray themselves as being concerned about the environment and the sourcing of their meat, and doing tiny little things to make them look good, when actually they are still a million miles from being even vaguely 'healthy' or sustainable.

I blame Rupert Lowe.

Yeah, was gonna say that... it wasn't what I'd call a deliberate assist, more of a hopeful ball in, but it doesn't matter how they come! There was a twitter exchange between Jordan Sibley, Tom Coull and others because they were the ones who originally thought it was Richardson's assist, and even convinced Jacqui Oatley, covering the game for 5Live, to say so as well... they then tweeted when it became apparent that the FL team of the week contained Richardson, because it had possibly all stemmed from their mistake. All completely pointless really (a bit like hypo and Dig Dig's exchange above really! ) but there you go.

Red card was rescinded on appeal.

This is another interesting offshoot of this debate IMO. No one should PREACH anything. Preaching has no place in modern debate and opinion forming IMO. We can share our opinions and back it up with research and examples and theories, but to preach implies that we know what is right and what is wrong. There are so many variables in life, let along some of the key aspects of the 'left'/'right' debate, that no one solution is ever right or wrong for any of the issues we debate. We have all been hypocrites in our lives at some point and to some degree. Because we're human. We get stuff wrong, we lie, we get defensive and we do hypocritical things. We are not perfect, we never will be. And recognising that is a major starting point for any progress to be made IMO. That's why, although they have done many things I don't agree with, I was actually relatively pleased to see the coalition in place because it forced two parties with differing opinions on a wide range of subjects to (hopefully) come to decide policy based on debates about the subject at hand and not just the individual party line. That was my hope. I'm not sure it's actually happened, but it has been interesting viewing. But back to my point. Not actually living up to your moral/ethical/economic ideals does not automatically make you a hypocrite. When you operate within a system that is at odds with your ideals, you have to sometimes engage with the system to try and change or influence it. Ideally, the social enterprise business that my wife and I run would be a workers co-operative, but in order to establish it, we have done so initially as a Ltd company, with sole control over the company. It is still a 'non-profit' company, governed by the custom Articles we put together, with a view to changing in the future, once we have set it up as we would like. Does that make us hypocrites? Perhaps, but to establish it in the marketplace we find ourselves at present, we believe it is the best way to go. I do agree that there are those in the public eye whose lifestyle and ethics are often at hypocritical odds with each other, and that is a far easier call to make. Billy Bragg is not a bad example IMO, but then again I'm not sure ever truly know the full extent of what people do with their own money, and ultimately it is their own conscience that they have to be able to appease. Finally, on the capitalism side of things, I for one don't have a problem with capitalism as such, however it is the profits of that capitalism that I personally believe cause the problems. If it were distributed more widely and went to support the people, places which helped create the profit, then it becomes a far more sustainable means. As it stands, I believe the transfer of such large profits to such a small % of society, increasing the gap between rich and poor, will actually only create more problems and quite possibly large social unrest in the future.

This subject really annoys me. The only way we seem to be able to cope in life these days is to label people and pitch them against each other. It's all about headline-grabbing and statement-making. To get to real substance of opinion and discussion means you need to go a lot deeper but a lot of people are too thick or lazy to do so. I've had some great discussions with friends and colleagues about specific political issues where we discuss each thing on its own merits and come to independent conclusions, which are not based on pre-empted categorisations. I know that I am considered a leftie, but I have found myself agreeing and endorsing so-called 'right wing' views on many subjects. There are some very reasonable and intelligent posters on here for example, but as soon as certain people come along to start throwing labels around and playing the man rather than the ball, it all becomes quite tedious.

Well I can't claim to have seen much of him other than what I've seen on telly, but yesterday was a pretty poor display by him and it was even picked up by the commentators that at times when, as a striker, you would expect to see him busting a gut to get into the box and get on the end of something, he was often languishing on the edge of the area with seemingly no urgency about him at all. Now, we know that Lambert pulls out wide and often doesn't get into the box but his link-up play is so much better than anything I've seen from Carroll, and if the one thing that Carroll is supposed to do is 'cause chaos' in the box then he really has no excuse IMO.

Well I don't think so, there's a lot of good research and info out there to support the notion. If people need that much money to motivate them, there is something wrong with their life. It's also a sad indictment of modern life IMO. But each to their own. Well we're all different, but the day my self worth is governed by my pay packet is a sad one IMO. I recognise that within the current system, that is a fair statement. I just disagree with the system. Rates of pay like this just don't sit well with me from a moral point of view. I wouldn't want to earn it, but if I did, a large portion of it would go elsewhere, supporting charities, community initiatives etc. That's just me. But I strongly believe that if people were less selfish and looked out for those less fortunate, especially when in a position to do so, the world would be a far, far better place.

Sorry, first sentence of that last paragraph gave the wrong impression. The rest is still quite valid though. There is little difference to an individuals job satisfaction, their motivation, their happiness. Yes, of course, people live according to their means and so a 50% reduction in income would obviously make a difference in that regard. However, when it comes to self-worth, and the satisfaction/motivation issue, I do not believe paying someone £150k or £1.5m makes much difference to how well they do the job. If I earned more, I would pay your £5 subscription. ;-)

Some quite good points on this thread so far. I'm personally of the opinion that bonuses in general should not be awarded... we are all paid to do a job, and if we don't do our job then you should be performance managed. If rewards or bonuses are to be given they should be based on exceptional performance and/or on an irregular and unexpected basis. There is little difference to an individuals life, in paying them £150,000 or £300,000. Or virtually any figure above that. Personal motivation doesn't increase. Results don't better because you pay someone by an extra factor of 10. In fact, generally, studies show that all that does is increase stress and expectation.