Wes Tender

What breathtaking arrogance! It is not transparent at all that the argument for FPTP simply doesn't stack up vs AV. It might be in your mind, but I'm sure that there are very many who hold different opinions to yours, although you will smite their intelligence for having a different viewpoint to you. It is just such a position which calls into question your intellectual capacity. And you are not entitled to conclude that the "no" campaigners do so out of self-interest, any more than it would be true the other way around, that those who favour AV do so out of self-interest themselves. Also, I argue the constant allegation put out by the Yes lobby that the referendum is to vote for a fairer voting system, as this tacitly implies that the current system is unfair, which is again only a matter of opinion. I see nothing unfair with the proposition that in a constituency election, the person with the most votes wins. So the choice for voters is simple Leave things as they are, a system that has served our democracy well for centuries Change it to a system popular in only a handful of other Countries, a complicated, expensive system, likely to produce weak Governments where minority Parties hold the balance of power.

This is my choice:- http://issaintjohnnydeadyet.com

All this talk of a dirty campaign by the No lobby, gutter politics, etc and it appears that the Yes campaign aren't exactly covering themselves with glory and able to take the moral high ground. I have received a grubby little leaflet from them through my door. For a start, it is headed "Fairer Votes Referendum" Who says that the existent system is not fair, or that what might replace it is fairer? It then goes on to say that a Yes vote is a vote for change which will mean:- All MPs working harder - (can this be proven? Will they add on several hours to their working days?) A vote that counts - (does the vote under the current system not count? Do some of them get flushed down the toilet, or disappear by other methods?) Tackling the "jobs for life" culture at Westminster. - (so when an MP is elected, he has that job for the rest of his life? I thought that it was only guaranteed for 5 years and even then only if he did nothing to force its termination by taking the Chiltern Hundreds or some such) Whereas a vote No meant:- More of the same - (Yes, the status quo. The system that has served us well these past centuries.) Your voice not being heard - (Presumably they have not heard of MPs surgeries where any constituent with a problem can discuss it with their local MP) MPs in the Dock Expenses scandal These last too are just too funny for words. The AV system is going to mean that no MP is ever again going to end up in court on any matter. No further stories regarding MPs caught on a London Common with rent boys, no sordid affairs, no dirty videos claimed on expenses, etc. People like Elliot Morley, Geoffrey Archer, Jeremy Thorpe, Mandelson, etc, simply wouldn't have been elected had AV been used in the past, would they? AV is squeaky clean and MPs elected under that system will be paragons of virtue, FPTP MPs end up in court or fiddle their expenses. Its as simple as that.

Yes and it is not your first choice, it is your second choice, therefore a disappointment. And there is also the possibility that you might have to accept a biscuit instead. So why should the electorate not have the services of the candidate who received the most votes and be foisted with the one who was second or even third choice? Besides, this talk of having a mandate is also bunk, as the elected MP will be voting on a number of issues and cannot reasonably claim to have the support of his constituents on every issue, especially if he wasn't even elected by the majority of them as first choice. And even then, he is a part of a government who might favour a different stance on certain policies to that taken by any one individual MP. The only truly democratic government would be one which had referenda on all of the major issues, one person, one vote. But that isn't going to happen, as every government considers that it knows what is best for us.

Preferably the 4.30 to Deadwood...

I've always thought that badge looked a bit mickey-mouse. So somebody says that it was originally drawn by a professional graphic designer, but that is not necessarily a guarantee that it must therefore be brilliant. He would have designed something that he reckoned would appeal to the supporters and perhaps thought that a large proportion of them still read comics. Because we have had that badge for so long, it is long overdue that we thought about changing it. The scarf and ball look particularly dated. A question to all you lovers of the badge we have now; how many of you take a scarf to the match?

Several times the last match I noted us passing sideways or back when the player could have advanced himself several yards towards their box. But then we were missing the players like Lallana, or Chamberlain, Schneiderlin etc who would have used pace or guile to progress the ball forwards. Instead, we had some players who either lacked the confidence or the imagination to be a bit more adventurous. Even hoofing the ball forward has its advantages once in a while, provided that the players are available with the positioning skill or the pace to run onto it. We lack a midfield playmaker and in his absence, much of the midfield passing lacks penetration. With the injuries we currently have, I see it as much more of a problem than it has been earlier in the season.

Yes, it is a good ploy to pass backwards in order to keep possession, rather than hoofing it upfield, but we often pass backwards because we have some players who lack the imagination to go forwards with the ball, or to make a telling forward pass. That is what was frustrating in the Rovers match, where it was essential that we picked up the three points and had found it hard to break down their defence for much of the match. So what won the match? A player with the ball at his feet attacking the defence and causing havoc in their box. All too often when we are behind late in a game, we throw caution to the wind and get the ball into the box as quickly and as often as possible. Very often it produces results and scoring chances. So why should we be happy with the tippy tappy stroking the ball about, sideways, backwards, mostly all to no effect beyond keeping possession, when there is often space opening up in front of a player, or options to pass forwards out wide? The possession figures might look impressive when we're passing the ball about and many teams are perfectly happy for us to run down the clock passing without penetration, but ultimately what counts more is the number of shots on target.

It looked as if it would be one of those days, where we huff and puff and get nothing because of missed half-chances. That type of game is exacerbated when the referee is poor and this one was as poor as they come, especially over the ridiculous card for the handball when the ball was going out. A succession of yellow cards from some non-entity trying to make a name for himself stopped the flow of play, so the game was played in fits and starts, several players afraid to make the full-blooded tackles that would have had the idiot in turquoise reaching for the red card. And it must also be mentioned that their keeper played a blinder, making a string of superb saves from shots that most others at this level would have let in. Noboby could reasonable moan at the lack of opportunity, that we were incapable of getting behind them. But they defended well, crowding their area whenever we pushed forward. We sorely missed Chamberlain for the direct play from his pace and Lallana for his defence splitting passes and trickery in the box. As a result, we didn't attack with pace, allowing Rovers to marshall their defence. Forte showed good pace, but as yet lacks the flair. As others have observed, Lambert tends to sit back in midfield and although his passing from there has been excellent, I wonder why he isn't at the front to put away the goals alongside Barnard. Guly is a bit of a connundrum; He seems to have good ball skills sometimes and a poor touch at other times. He will do something brilliant to gain a real advantage, but then suffer from poor decision making with the final ball. This presents problems as to where he should be played to best advantage. But just when I thought it was time to get him off, he pops in a great goal to save our bacon and keep the pressure on Hudderfield and Posh, who also won. But what is concerning, is the increasing number of injuries to key players that we are racking up at the most crucial time of the season. Barnard will be a big loss because of his industry and commitment. Without players like him, Lallana, Chamberlain, Schneiderlin, we begin to lack the quality and invention that has set us apart. I'm sure that we have players who give maximum effort and who have ability, but without as much flair. One can only hope that there are players who will now come into the reckoning who have been patiently awaiting their chance, who will step up to the plate and take us over the line in second place. If we don't make it, I fear for our success in the lottery that is the play-offs.

I was just reading the excellent Matt Slater blog on the forensic investigation that is to be carried out by the Liquidator of the old Portsmouth Football Club as a condition of their administration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/03/safe_hands_hudson_the_crazy_ga.html Had a great belly laugh at the audacity of this post below. Well done, Harry! Trying to wriggle off the hook, are we? 4. At 11:44am 19th Mar 2011, Best Team In London wrote: So the taxman is now going to cost us even more money, while it maliciously chases these shadows - hiring some expensive firm to try and find money that probably isn't there. The taxman is risking more loss in these payments. All this 'too much money in football' is actually going to the taxman - who takes none of the risks, and the lion's share of the profits. So wouldn't it be better to assist Pompey to get back to health for the long-term tax income. The more healthy Pompey is, the more money changes hands, the more tax it will have to pay. Instead of spending another £17 million chasing the original £17 million, why not start earning the tax revenue from a now healthy business - one that operates in a sector where silly money changes hands, and each time it does, it makes the taxman rich - meanwhile the owners are vilified and then hunted down as soon as the money stops pouring in. Put simply: the taxman is now continuing to lose our money faster than Pompey!

I'm pretty sure that they're all Skate fans and have done stuff for them in the past

I was a big fan of Kachloul too. He had many attributes including a great workrate and good spirit and as demonstrated here, a good eye for goal. I still remember that match well and the emotion that was genererated by the MLT goal and it's good to be reminded of it.

So although Huddersfield have drawn 6 of their last 13 matches, against teams like Swindon,Yeovil, Dag & Red,Oldham, etc, you believe that drawing matches is not a possibility any longer for them? All we have to do is match the results achieved by Huddersfield and Posh, win, draw or lose and we are up.

Saint Lard comes across as one of the most ready to find things wrong with the current set-up at the club. Definitely some sort of agenda there IMO, so I take everything he says with a giant pinch of salt.

Peterborough play Rochdale on 30th. Rochdale also managed to gain a draw against Brighton recently too, so I for one wouldn't expect a Peterborough win as a formality. Huddersfield have matches to come against Brighton, MK Dons and Charlton. I wouldn't expect wins for them in all of those matches to be a formality either.

Some people are making their assessment based on the fact that Rochdale were capable of beating us at St Mary's, therefore they ought to be capable of beating us when playing at home. But a closer inspection of certain circumstances surrounding that match will be instructive in forming a different conclusion, perhaps. The match was the first under Wilkins as caretaker, following Pardew's dismissal. That dismissal followed a weak start to the season and much was claimed by many that the pre-season preparation had not been good, that players were not fit and that Pardew's heart wasn't really in it. Looking back, Lambert didn't seem to be right and has only recently shown glimmers of his old self within the past month or two. Whether the confidence of the team had been affected by Pardew's dismissal is also a possible factor. Barnard was also suspended, another player who can make a difference and who is now in devastating form. Chamberlain played, but was at that time still a bit raw, as was Martin. Reading the match report again, we also had the Puncheon that fired shots into row Z. In that game, Connolly was up front. So Lambert and Barnard firing on all cylinders is a far more potent attack, Jaidi with Fonte a better defence. OK, Schneiderlin had played and is missed perhaps, but the midfield we have now is doing well, with Dickson looking good out wide and Lallana possibly returning if needed. And what about the team spirit now under Adkins? Quite a different kettle of fish to that under Wilkins post Pardew, I'd say. Tactical awareness? Also better with Adkins IMO. Also, the team can clearly see the prospect of promotion as a reality if they keep their concentration going for a little while longer. So overall, there are many reasons why the match tomorrow should be quite different to that earlier in the season. Despite all this, we'll probably lose because that is what Saints do.

IMO Dyer wouldn't make our current team. He got dissed by many for the same reason that Bradley Wright-Phillips did; firstly he's a thief and secondly, like B W-P he wasn't all that good when he was here, so he was loaned out. At the time, he also had to go because we needed the money. When you talk about "we as supporters having no idea what makes a quality player" presumably you don't include yourself. There are many facets that go towards what makes a "quality" player, including mental attitude, ability to fit into a team, ambition, character and desire, etc. No doubt players like Dyer, Puncheon and B-WP do have some skills, but that doesn't make them good players in the wider context.

Had a good laugh at the ignorant **** offering the vicar at St Mary's Church (who was in on the sting) a special lower price for a cash payment, as there would be no VAT charged. I'm really pleased that he got two years in prison. I'd have been very angry had he got away with a suspended sentence or community service. People like him who fly-tip all over the place are scum.

Not only is my brother a fellow convert to your religion, but apparently the Pope chose to visit his abode on Census Day!

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186299-d968855-Reviews-White_Star_Tavern-Southampton_Hampshire_England.html

I take issue with the highlighted word here. Who says it is unsustainable? I see no evidence whatsoever that we cannot sustain this level of debt. So either remove it, or give us some concrete evidence to back it up instead of being alarmist and using hysterical adjectives.

No, that couldn't be, as it is against the rules of the forum.

That was the value of the train painting that Doncaster gave us.

So where is your evidence that there is any likelihood of a stand being named after Cortese "because he is a control freak"?

The financing of the club is obviously a very important factor in the success of a club. Presumably when you're talking about egotistical Chairmen, you're thinking about the sort of Arthur Daley type cowboys like Mitchell at Bournemouth, rather than ours. Yes, the team lives and dies by its success on the pitch, but if the club is well run by a wealthy and savvy Chairman/Chief Executive, then the decent manager and the decent players are affordable. The manager rightly gets the plaudits, but the Chairman/Chief Executive who has facilitated the hiring of the manager and players can bask in the reflected glory of their success. Nothing wrong with that, surely?