Minty

lol, we have been very good at that this season Lungs...

206ao. Wonderful.

Well we made 200... 201/9 off 78 at the mo. Still very, very poor though. Dawson's 38 the top score. But if our bowlers can get amongst them, who knows? (Optimist? Me?)

A rolling 4 week period would probably be better...

Can I suggest that one locked sticky post remains in which a mod lists any new players linked, with the date they're linked, and a link to the appropriate thread. Then there is still one simple place someone can refer to to see if a name has already been mentioned. A rumour index if you will...?

126/5 off 47.2 as I type...we'd probably fare better in the CC if we treated it like a Twenty20...

IMO, whoever we sign is likely to come in for a season or two to allow Martin to develop and settle into the side, and then within 2 seasons time I fully expect Martin to be a first choice centre back. Monk fits the bill well IMO, experienced now, but who probably only has a few years left in him at the top(ish) level

Well, there's a interesting little twist. I've lost count of how many players have been released over the years, or moved to other/lower clubs because they weren't 'good enough' for us or other reasons, and as we slipped down the leagues, quite a few of them overtook us on the way back up. Monk, Mike Williamson, Matt Mills, Brian Howard, Boa Morte, Stephen Crainey, Jutkiewicz, Nile Ranger, must be others... One of them had to come back eventually! Not seen Monk that much since he left but certainly aware that he has been a very key part of Swansea's defence for awhile now, and is highly rated by them - he was their captain I believe. A welcome signing if indeed it is happening.

Sorry for the interruption, but I'm a bit confused... why has no one started having a go at Weston Saint for being an ITK yet? ;-) This is SaintsWeb after all, it has a reputation to keep up...

jordansibley - "Adkins also confirms that Saints have the only accepted bid on the table for Chelsea midfielder Jack Cork. #saintsfc"

Spookily I had never heard one until just last night, sat on the sofa, cat sat on the top of the sofa, arse facing me... say no more.

As a potentially new independent retailer in the coming months, I'm very interested in this, and have been for some time as part of the discussions about sustainable business and local economies. Supporting independent shops is a hard habit to get into. Cost of living is going up, income is being stretched, and these shops are widely perceived, and in many cases are, more expensive than chains supermarkets. However, as always with these issues, the price of product and the cost of a product are not necessarily the same thing, and equally, the price/value relationship is far from clear too. At a simple level, most people simple compare the basic product and the price. That's life, we all do it, some more than others depending on their awareness. Many more in this day and age are starting to take other things into account. Some support Fairtrade because they are aware of the impact on producers abroad having their margins squeezed to the point where their families cannot afford even the basic... some support local businesses and trades because they know it benefits the local economy and that in turn supports them. There are environmental/resource concerns too... the distance products have had to travel, how they're made and by whom. On the face of it, a cheaper product may be 'better' but the actual cost to us in the long term may create more problems. For example, the current waste issues we're experiencing (referring to the build up, not the political/financial issues) would be far less if more packaging was compostable or recyclable. A relatively small increase in cost per item (which would more than likely be negated as it is used more as demand increases) would see far more able to be recycled or composted, which would reduce waste processing costs, better value for council tax money etc, etc. Independent retailers also tend to use local independent tradesmen for things like their essential services and maintenance... continuing the investment in the local economy. There's a whole range of indirect effects of people taking their trade elsewhere. Unfortunately the root cause of a lot of these issues (as well as the wider financial situation) is that we as individuals have got used to spending more and more of our money on 'luxuries' and less on the essentials. This is why, when people are interviewed or asked about what they can afford, when people say 'i can't afford to eat' they actually mean, 'if i wanted to continue with my current level of spend on luxuries, i can't afford it'... something has to give. If we support independent shops by spending a bit more on a bit less, we are helping to create a far more sustainable economy with localised resilience, maintaining a diversity of skills in the local marketplace, supporting the local economy and councils more (through tax and rates) which in turn helps subsidise local services... and so it continues. The more we want, the less we want to pay for it. The less we want to pay, the more the systems and margins are squeezed, the more retailers and suppliers go out of business, the more people are either unemployed or have to work for larger dominant companies who can monopolise markets, and the more we lose skills and more money in local areas... etc, etc. I think I've covered it! BUT, as with all of these things that rely on individual choice, how many people are capable of looking at things longer term and on a less selfish basis?

Irrespective of the opinions on the strike itself and the reasons behind it, Essruu's point above is spot on. Our street has not one bag of rubbish visible. Yes, some bins are full, but most people either don't fill their bins that quickly because they don't need to, or recycle a lot themselves, or have simply taken some of their rubbish directly to the tip. We can't do anything about the strike itself, but we can do plenty about how the rubbish piles up (or not) in our own areas. For the sake of one or two trips to the tip, and a bit of thought and care for the area and our neighbours, we have a clean street with virtually no evidence of a bin-man strike. The one thing this strike has highlighted for me is that the thought of taking some personal responsibility is clearly too much for some people to handle... too many people in this world would simply be unable to cope with any major problem if we encountered one. I wonder how some people clean their own arses.

Been awhile since I've jumped on one of these threads so here goes... I think it is entirely to Saintandy666's credit that he shows such a healthy respect for other people and the wider environment. I fully understand many of the doubts that exist on this thread and in the wider world about climate change, global warming, man's influence etc, and it is entirely right to question these things in the pursuit of better knowledge. However, if it weren't for people being interested in and concerned by things like this, and wanting to improve things for future generations then the world would be a hell of a lot different than how it is. Probably every scientist in existence. It is entirely correct that we are but a mere pimple on the arse cheek of the universe, existing for a tiny proportion of the universes expected trillion year life (as we understand it!). But that doesn't mean that we should stop looking at how we influence the environment and each other to try and improve quality of life for future generations. For me this comes down to how much we care about our fellow man. Is it the case that we will all die anyway, and man will become extinct, so what does it matter what we do and when? I can slightly understand that when it comes to people on the other side of the Earth, because we are naturally detached from them and human nature is very generally to be concerned with that which affects us directly. But what about your own children? If you are a parent, you want what is best for them, yes? You would not do anything that might put them at risk of harm, no? So, if we have a large body of evidence that clearly tells us of possible consequences of for our current and planned actions, over which we may well have some significant control, what should we do? Do we take on board this body of evidence, which is the best we know of at this time, and act accordingly in the interests of our children and their children, so we can look them in the eye in later life and be happy in ourselves that we acted in good faith to try and protect them? Or do we ignore the body of evidence and consensus of opinion and tell our kids... well, tell them what exactly? "Yes, there were warnings, but we ignored them because we didn't think your lives and your childrens' lives were worth putting in any effort, just in case they are wrong?" Is that not entirely against every parental instinct we have? Look upon it as a risk assessment if you like. The potential for harm may not change... we may well end up extinct as a race anyway. But if the body of evidence indicates that we can reduce the likelihood by amending our ways and living more sustainably, then what is the prudent course of action? I may tend to waffle a bit on this subject, so I think a Native American Indian proverb sums it up best for me: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Nice one Daren, can I subscribe? ;-)

Sunglasses? It'd be just like going outside in a particularly sunny country.

Indeed. If anyone from the club is reading this (and my posts on Twitter) then I'm sorry, but in the absence of anything else remotely interesting going on today, I found it funny and needed to be shared!

Probably something dictated over the phone and interpreted incorrectly by whoever typed it out... still bloody funny though.

But if you do find the correct Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/OfficialSaints/220396037973624 ... and like it, you get to enter this wonderful competition:

Poorly worded on my part perhaps, so please don't confuse my comment about giving way to things with impatience. Put simply, if there are two routes you can legally take, and one takes a lot longer than the other, which would you take? Cycle routes are mostly conversions of pavements of existing paved areas that cross driveways, access roads, side roads, and use crossings etc, which take far longer than using the road. I know the road you mean, and to be fair, that isn't a bad cycle route. I've used it myself many times, however one of my main reasons is because some drivers drive quite quickly along the single carriageway road and struggle to brake in time when they come round a couple of the corners to be faced with an obstruction, or a cyclist they want to overtake and a vehicle is coming the other way.

Well, if you bait people even from the thread title, it's guaranteed to happen! lol As for Bishop, despite being a 'leftie' I also believe that if you break the law, then you *must* serve a punishment, irrespective of things like this. However, clearly provision needs to be made for his kids. The difficulty is that children in care are likely to be disadvantaged as a result, which is unfair on them. If our care system worked properly (and I am aware that is a big generalisation and that some care homes are quite good) then it wouldn't be such an issue, but it is and if I were the judge then I honestly don't know what other options are available. There must be some, but the dad MUST be punished in some way. The concept of suspended sentances irks me too, but then it all ties in with a bigger problem of prison overcrowding and the fact that we actually need to be working harder to rehabilitate offenders so that they don't reoffend, and work a lot harder with younger people to instil morals and values from a younger age to prevent them getting into crime in the first place. But that's a whole other conversation.

I gotta be honest, dune makes some valid points there. Can he handle the fact that I, a leftie, said so though.

Ignoring Hitchen, if we're talking about Wayne Bishop then yes, it is worth talking about. Remove the fact it's a Daily Mail blog from the conversation, as it's not really relevant. Probably worth changing the thread title too *if* that was the genuine intention.

Cycle paths are very good for the occasional or recreational cyclist who is not confident using the road. Unfortunately for people like myself they are like going down a bumpy B road when there is a motorway available. Newer ones are not bad, but many are poorly surfaced, quite a few are dangerous because you're sharing with pedestrians, and they are a lot slower because you have to give way to 101 different things that you don't have to on the road. The difference in quality of cycle lanes is shocking. Some are very good, and I use them. On some very busy roads, they are almost essential (Millbrook Road for example... although it's not ideal, you generally don't want to be on the 3-lane carriageway unless it's quiet). But many of them are pointless, too short, in poor condition, unsafe for pedestrians, and give no benefit to competent cyclists.

If every road user respected every other road user, then we'd be fine. There are poor cyclists, poor drivers, poor motorcyclists, and poor pedestrians who also like to use the road sometimes! A couple of things re some points raised above: - Cyclists are 'taxed'. Roads and cycle lanes are paid for through general taxation. Vehicle Excise Duty does not pay for them. And if cyclists were brought in to be covered by VED, then they would have zero charge because of their 'emissions'. Except perhaps those who'd had a curry the night before. - Insurance and licensing, I agree, should be compulsory for *any* vehicle on the road. - doddisalegend is spot on... assume everyone is going to cut you up or drive like an idiot. Anticipation is king. - Responsible cyclists hate those who go through red lights and ride carelessly as much as any driver, if not more so, because we get labelled the same way. - Speed is undoubtedly a problem, but impatience is worse. The combination is what usually causes serious accidents.