Wes Tender

Your last sentence is a bit tetchy. I thought that my response was balanced and objective. I didn't misconstrue your point about the blinkered Skate fans, but you drew a comparison between us and them by insinuating that they weren't bright enough to be critical of those who have run them into the ground and that we would therefore be hypocrites if we didn't do the same to the people running our club. I just thought that the comparison was unfounded and a bit shrill at this stage, especially when it is arguable that we are at totally opposite ends of the scale regarding how well each club is run. IMO, the same thing applies to your projection onwards that a ban on professional photographers would ultimately result in a ban on journalistic freedom. I suspect that even if you do manage to find an instance of a journalist losing his license, it will not be because the football club complained about him being critical about how their team played. I suspect that it would have more to do with whether the reporting was libellous or unprofessional in some way. Licenses apply to all sorts of trades and professions, from pubs to dance halls and cinemas, right through to medicine, legal practice, the finance industry. So all of these are subject to control measures too and all have the power to withdraw those licenses thus affecting the livelihood of those employed in those businesses. In most cases, where peoples' livelihoods are affected, there is some avenue for appeal through a tribunal or through a court of law. In view of the above, I'm not about to get over-excited about this little episode. The season starts today, so happily we have other things to discuss that are much more important to most of us.

You were doing OK until you got to the last part. Some seem to think that your whole post is spot on, but I find some of it to be contentious, so I've added my reasons. Florida Marlin So by inference you choose to label those who agree with your viewpoint as objective and fair-minded and those who take an opposing view are self-centred and blinkered inbreds. Did I get the gist of that right?

I bow to your superior knowledge of business practice. Perhaps Cortese ought to take you on in a consultancy basis, as your grasp of business is obviously so much better than his. Could you just refresh my memory as to what it is you do at the top of the local business tree and what qualifications you have gained along the way? I'm presuming that you must be very high management running this very busy port of ours judging by your moniker. Am I correct?

Does everything that is done by our current Chairman have to be referenced against how we would have reacted if the past Chairman had done the same? You're beginning to sound a bit like Dalek constantly sounding off about Hoddle whenever the subject of the manager is discussed.

So Mr Injustice Mann threw it out on the technicality that the Android was within his rights to dismiss the increase in the debt owed to HMRC because he could not be expected to verify that amount in the time available? And that ignores the case that I thought was pertinent, that if HMRC say that sum of money is owed as tax, then that has to be paid and then disputed afterwards, perhaps through an appeal by the Skates. Otherwise, surely on that basis, if that is the point on which the case swung against HMRC, then they should allow time for the Android to verify that amount and then go back to court, having removed the grounds for the case to be dismissed. But as you say, Matt Slater is being rather disingenuous to accept that the Android's debt figure was correct whilst HMRC's was not. Let's have some objectivity, Matt.

How long does HMRC have before their right to an appeal expires? Whereas they have indicated that they will not appeal, IMO what they have said allows them a let out clause to reconsider, to say that they have changed their minds. In a statement, HMRC said: 'HMRC is naturally disappointed not to have won this appeal and we can confirm that we do not intend to appeal. 'Our aim when pursuing debt of any kind is to achieve a fair outcome for the taxpayer and we will take this forward in the wider context of the football industry through separate and outstanding legal proceedings over the status of the so called "Football Creditors Rule. 'This is an important and complex judgment and until we have had the opportunity to study it in detail we can't comment further.' What if they had a contingency policy to cause maximum embarassment to the Skates and to the Football Authorities? That they delay their appeal, having found sufficient grounds to challenge the learned (not) Judge's ruling and appeal when the season is well under way? Vindictive action by them, but sending out a clear message that they are not to be messed with. Failing that, I will just have to content myself with the possibilities of further collateral damage through the trials of Storrie, Mandaric and Redcrapp and to console myself that although able to fight another day, their situation otherwise is still mighty precarious.

Typical illiterate illegitimate Skate. I fixed it even further.

It will obviously have to be deducted from the £24 million, as had the work-experience level judge accepted that the debt was £37, even an imbecile such as he would have had to have accepted that HMRC would have had enough votes to have overuled the CVA.

Perhaps HMRC will deduct it from the tax that the Skates owe them.

Perhaps we can go to court to claim the £30 million back from HMRC that we paid them when we had no need to. Can we have Mr Mann to adjudicate, as he seems to lack a spine and no more moral fibre than the Android, so our success would be assured.

The Skates had their equivalent of the free flat, holiday and allowances the last time they went into administration. Time for them to be put away, I think.

Good thing you don't live in Skatesville, or you wouldn't find a virgin very easily. But ignore the omen of the sun shining over Portsmouth, as it's well known that the sun shines only on the righteous.

I saw no pomposity in the post at all. Furthermore, I didn't arrive at the conclusion that he was making out that NC was some infant businesmman. And he didn't say that fans do not have the right to complain about anything and his acceptance that there might be threads of 1000 posts suggests to me that he acknowledges that there will be some dissent along the way. In your case, it isn't a need for perspective; it's the need for the right perspective.

I'm not that peturbed that Matt Slater reckons the Skates might just get away with it. What judicial and legal qualifications does he have? Is he a specialist in reporting legal matters? He might have discussed this with people who are clued up in these matters, but it seems to me from reading opinions on here from some seemingly pretty savvy people that the case against them is strong. I await the result later today with keen anticipation that the cheating bastards will be taken to account at last.

If there is a background of several other hints and allegations that are unsubstantiated, then of course a growing incredulity arises and it becomes incumbent on those who perpetrate these rumours to provide more concrete evidence. As it is, several of these posts expressing doubts as to the veracity of these allegations give quite good reasons as to why doubt is sensible. For example, there was the meeting of the FL Chairmen only in June and it seems strange that there should be another meeting that nobody can find details of so soon after. Also strange that in the peak holiday season, all of the other chairmen were able to attend. Although it is alleged that a letter was sent to all of these Chairmen, no copy of it has yet surfaced in the public domain. So yes, Pat or anybody else who seemingly has an agenda against our chairman, does indeed need to provide concrete evidence to substantiate their claims, or else the opinions that they are all bull**** are entirely justified under the circumstances.

This is exactly where I am with this closed season with my opinion, O-B. Perhaps there are too many on here with too much time on their hands because of school/college/uni holidays and maybe these are the ones that lack respect for the opinions of others and the inability to be civil towards them. Who knows? As you say, in previous breaks between seasons recently, we have had to discuss the loss of the manager or star players, even changes of ownership or whether we would even exist. This has been the most settled period between seasons that I can ever remember and also the most optimistic recently in terms of hope and expectation for the coming season. It has been boring in its lack of activity generally, thank God. Perhaps the Devil makes work for idle hands.

Cometh the hour, cometh the Mann.

You've not told us why this couldn't have been added to the existing thread on the subject and now you've had enough. As you started this thread, would you therefore be happy if the Mods closed it?

But you have loads of evidence that they have sent a formal apology then? No, I thought not.

Is that what passes for a response to your mind, Stu? A bit feeble, isn't it? Contradictory too, as my assertion that you could have ressurected the previous thread was all about the matter in hand. This is just repetition of it all. So why couldn't you just have updated the previous thread? What has changed to warrant another thread? I'd really be interested to know.

He seems to have totally avoided answering my post 116 asking him why he doesn't choose to resurect the original thread that dealt with the original banning of the Echo, where all of this ground has already been well trodden. Perhaps it is personal ego and he likes to open threads under his own name... Response please, Stu?

Has the ban been imposed again, or is it is the same ban as before which has not been lifted? And why apart from the ego boost that I suspect you derive from being the originator of threads was it necessary to rake over all the same ground that has been debated before when the original ban was introduced? What has changed? Why could the original thread have been reopened and added to, if anybody felt inclined to add anything to it?

Can't we just have one thread exclusively for those who wish to have a dig against Cortese? Then they can all spit out their bile in the one place. I propose that SRS starts the thread, as I'm sure that he is the one who would derive the most pleasure from it. What is frustratingly boring is having the same people starting or hijacking thread after thread spouting the same stuff ad nauseum. No new points have been made; it is just the same stuff regurgitated again and again. If it was all on the same thread, then we could ignore it if we so wished. I presume that you know the story of Peter and the Wolf? The moral of that story might provide a clue as to the answer to your question.

Because I have the right to express my opinion on an internet forum which I have done. Sorry that you don't approve of my dissent, but I didn't realise that this was a thread exclusively for those who wished to stoke your ego.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/League+One/Southampton Fill your boots.