Wes Tender

If those were the criteria for siting the stadium, then the obvious place would be Stoneham again, which has far better transport links and has the advantage that it was proposed already, before Lowe c*cked it up.

Frankly, I was a bit disappointed when I saw the new set-up. The simplest way that I can state it, is that the old format looked professional, whereas this looks amateur. And as for that typeface for the name, it looks juvenile. I've looked at links to other fans' sites over a longish period of time and thought that ours was far and away the best presented. It had gravitas and style. Now it is just the same as most others. The white background to enter posts might make it easy to read, but I think it looks stark. I preferred the grey which looks more sophisticated. I've nothing against tweaking the site with additional facilities, but what was wrong with the actual format? Change for change's sake?

But of course. Ground sharing with the mighty Havant and Waterlooville for preference.

Agreed. They should be a massive threat to every other team in the Conference.

I don't know how to put up pics, but here is a link to the equivalent Yanks map of the World. http://blogs.gnome.org/muelli/files/2009/06/america.gif

Only Skate fans. HTH

It is encouraging that it is more difficult for this benefit to be abused, because like you, I believe that if fraudulent claims are reduced, more money is made available for those whose need is genuine. I also agree that there must be many who are disabled who would like to work, but who find barriers such as prejudice and bigotry placed in front of them, not to mention red tape regarding the Health and Safety bureaucracy. But the tests will initially apply only to new claimants, while the Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit. But what happened about the above? Seems to me that at the time of this proposal, a much higher number of people were already claiming the benefit than previously. It surely cannot be that numbers would have increased so dramatically over a few years without many of those claims being fraudulent. Did Labour do an about turn on that, or is it the case that during the past two years or so, those already claiming avoided the tests? If so, I am assuming that it will be looked at anew by the Coalition.

The essence of what you write is not whether people have a disability, it is whether that disability prevents them from working. There have been numerous well publicised cases of widespread fraud, of people who are allegedly incapacitated, but refereeing football matches, working as landscape gardeners, or trekking across continents. A couple of years ago, the BBC published a report, which gave some interesting background to the situation at that time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7173453.stm Parts that stand out for me are as follows:- An estimated 500,000 people are now claiming IB, while claims from under-25s have risen by more than half over the last 10 years. INCAPACITY FIGURES 2.64m people claim IB It costs the country £12.65bn every year More than half of IB claimants have been on benefit for 5 years or more The number of young people claiming IB is up by a half Mr Cameron said: "I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all. The Conservatives are the latest party to focus on the large number of IB claimants, estimated to have nearly quadrupled since the 1970s. The figure has fallen slightly over recent years to about 2.6m people - but experts are still puzzled at the overall trend, given the UK's rising health and living standards. There have also been a number of high-profile cases of apparently healthy people fraudulently claiming the benefit, while secretly holding down physically demanding jobs. The government has already pledged to introduce tougher tests for those claiming IB from this autumn. It says it expects to cut the number of claimants by 20,000 each year. But the tests will initially apply only to new claimants, while the Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit. Now, I haven't dug too deep into the situation since that report. The target was to reduce the numbers claiming by 20000 per annum. But it is clear that unless there was a massive increase in the number of people, particularly the young, becoming somehow incapitated in very large numbers, the inference could be drawn that many were claiming fraudulently. I suspect that many claimed back injuries, which are difficult to prove. More likely the problem was a lack of backbone. One advantage of this increase in claimants of disability allowance is that the figures are taken off the unemployment statistics as far as I'm aware and they also increase pressure for increased expenditure on the National Health budgets.

He is a dollar billionaire though, which is probably what they are alluding to.

Although I suspect that this is the throwaway line equivalent to a shrug of the shoulders, nevertheless I think that it hits the nail right on the head. The time that this sort of action was needed, was during the turmoil and disunity of the Lowe era, when there was a board structure and shareholders had some clout. Currently, the running of the club is down to Nicola Cortese on behalf of Markus Liebherr, therefore the only clout we have is actually through our financial input, through match attendances and buying merchandise. Although there might be the occasional hiccup, generally the perception of most is that the club is being run well and that we will progress back to the Premiership under the current ownership. I'm also confident that Cortese realises the importance of good customer relations and the necessity of maintaining them, in order to maximise income and improve profitability. OK, so there is a bit of a grouse that some might be upset that they cannot pay by installments. Well, actually they can, but not through the club. Perhaps their financial situations due to the recession have furnished them with an excuse to stop going. For those who continue to attend, the promise is of an even better season with more exciting developments than last season. I agree that this forum is a good indication of a cross section of the fan base. But if the Echo wish to have a view representative of the fans, then they can easily get it from here. As I understand that they have staff who post here too, surely it shouldn't be beyond their wit to select a few of the posters whose views they deem to be reasonable and sensible and PM them, asking if they can be contacted for an opinion on breaking news that has not been debated on here yet. Likewise, the club also read this forum too so I believe and are therefore cognisant of the opinions of a decent cross section of fans. Personally, the Trust or SISA do not speak for me and are increasingly an irellevance due to the miniscule numbers of their memberships. If the Echo or other media persist in using them as rent-a-quote, then increasingly they will be held to ridicule and contempt from the larger fan base. If they were to constantly be bombarded with e-letters pointing out that those spokespersons did not voice the opinions of the masses, then the message would penetrate eventually.

It doesn't seem incredible at all to most sensible people that a Prime Minister and indeed the party they led, are not universally popular. There is not one PM or party that has garnered universal support throughout history. Opinion on MT is far more polarised than for other leaders because she had to take more urgent action than most on matters that needed addressing or else the country would have ended up going further down the pan. She took the measures that turned the economy around when we were known as the sick man of Europe. Naturally the medicine administered was no more palateable than it will be when Cameron has to attempt to clear up the mess left by Labour this time around. She took on the Trade Unions, whose hold on Britain's manufacturing industry and the public sector had allowed them to hold the country to ransom on more than one occasion. British Industry was massively overmanned and inefficient through restrictive practices with strikes every five minutes, especially in the Nationalised sector. There were many heavy industries like shipbuilding, coal mining, car manufacturing, steel and train manufacturing that would inevitably sooner or later lose out to foreign competition with their lower unit labour costs. Those industries might have hung on longer had it not been that they were crippled by union action that made them bloated and costly to run. So for all those who lost their jobs through those industries that went to the wall because of the reasons I gave, their jobs would have had to have gone anyway, regardless of which party was in office. If some lost houses through property speculation or through profligate overspending on their credit cards, then enough warnings are given that the value of investments can go down as well as up. People are going to have to learn the very same lessons this time around too, so inevitably if Cameron has the guts to take the measures needed to put the economy right, he will be a figure of hate too in a decade, if he sees it through.

This really is priceless, isn't it? Presumably he is overlooking in his naivety the possibility that some monies due to the taxman had been avoided by some of the transfers of players into the club going through Swiss Bank accounts and through the tax haven of the BVIs. Also, what sort of warped logic would state that they could afford the wages of the players but not the PAYE/NI? That's a bit like saying that one could afford the product, but not the VAT on it, or the holiday but not the flight. And he makes out a case that the foreign players paid high taxes but received no benefit from the State for education (presumably none of the foreign players had children over here) or health. But what about all of the British players in their squad? Anyway, there really cannot be any defence at all of a club that has cheated the taxpayer of revenue that could have been used to improve education, health and pensions or used to repay debts owed to charities and schools, but which instead went towards the over-inflated wages of footballers earning more than the Prime Minister and most of us mere mortals who abide by the law and pay our taxes.

Well, as I said above, opinion from posters on a football forum is hardly going to be representative of the views of the country at large, is it? What I would say judging from your post, is that whichever regime was in power during the formative years of your schooling has a lot to answer for regarding your education, or more accurately, lack of it. You must have been skiving off school when they had the lessons on punctuation. You're glad that we've moved on from the 70s and 80s and the struggles they brought you because of the financial turmoil, but presumably you believe today to be a garden of roses by comparison. Let me predict without much difficulty that what is to come will make that look like a picnic by comparison. And yes, it will be the Conservatives again causing you pain because of their policies. But if you take away the blinkers of your political prejudice, you will accept that the painful medicine will have to be administered because of Labour's mismanagement of the economy, just as much of the pain of the 80's was for the same reason.

So you're an historian then? Most historians make their judgements about a person after they have died. You appear to be one of the few on here who acknowledges that she went some years ago, so well done. Others seem to forget that when she first arrived in power it was over thirty years ago and they carry on as if it were just yesterday. Dune baited the hook by starting this thread with the picture of her outside Number 10 and it's amazing how many bites he got. Personally, I'm not taking much notice as to how the pros and cons stack up on her on a football forum. I don't really see that as representative of the views of the country as a whole, thank God.

Why, thank you kind sir.

The policy regarding sale of Council houses precluded Councils using it to rebuild new stock until outstanding Council debt had been repaid as I recall. That is good housekeeping, surely. A bit like the Skates being given the proceeds of the parachute payments and it being conditional on them using it to repay debt. The policy might have produced a shortage of low cost rental housing in areas like London, but it wasn't as if those existing tenants were then homeless, merely that extra housing wasn't built by London Councils to cater for others who needed low cost rental accomodation. But as you say, Housing Associations have sprung up in their place and do indeed do a good job of it. But if the policy was so flawed, how come Labour didn't get rid of it during their lengthy term in office? They tinkered with it, but the right to buy still remains. Personally I detest this scheme of allowing people to buy half the property and rent the other half. My reason for this stance is not because I don't want people to have the opportunity of getting their feet on the housing ladder, but rather that it helps to perpetuate the higher property prices, which would fall through supply and demand if the purchasers refused to go along with it. In effect, they are helping to sustain the higher prices because of their own actions. The failure of the economies here and in many other countries around the World, has had the effect of reducing property prices to more affordable levels, but finance companies are not releasing sufficient funds to boost the market, so property prices remain flat, despite increased demand. Certainly over a period of 7 years the prices have shown growth, but my property has lost probably as much as 30% over the past couple of years and a supposed increase of 10% over the last year still leaves me way behind three years ago, although still well ahead of 7 years ago. There may be one or two places around the South East where property prices remained static, but most of the South and South East experienced big falls during the past couple of years, as did most of the rest of the country. Average mortgage rates didn't quite reach 15% as far as I'm aware. And it was not for long and had much to do with tracking the Euro which thankfully we drew back from. Mind you, interest rates are a tool of economic control to attempt to rein in an overheating economy and inflation rates which also affect house prices peaked at over 25% under Healey. Naturally, I was very pleased with Healey, as the value of my mortgage debt decreased by the difference between that inflationary 25% and the much lower mortgage interest rate at the time. But of course, that sky high inflation figure was not very good news for the retired elderly living on their investments in the Building Societies who were offering a very much lower return, so many saw their life savings massively reduced in a very short time. So looking over the very long term, typically the 25 years of a mortgage period, bricks and mortar have been a good investment, but during that period there are always peaks and troughs, booms and recessionary falls.

I bow to your superior prowess as an historian and your last paragraph will undoubtedly be the one that learned scolars of the future turn to if they want to have the definitive critique of her terms in power. Not.

Couldn't care a toss for all those who would dance on her grave when she dies. I did the same when Wilson popped his clogs and similarly harbour the same thoughts about Healey, Prescott, the tub of lard Hattersley and Gordon Brown. History will be the judge of her and she will be judged as a great Prime Minister, whether you whingeing lefties like it or not. And for those who are left mentally scarred because she stopped free school milk, well, what can I say but poor Diddums. Life is so unfair, isn't it?

I'll have to read that again in more detail obviously. As it stands, I don't see where all this money is coming from unless the debt is in fact much less than the Android makes out. As it stands, surely the parachute payments are earmarked to the footballing creditors and Gaydamak only increases the payment to 99p instead of 65% if he withdraws his debt. Where is the money allowing Griffin to offer 65p when the Android can only offer 20p?

If he could up his figure to 30p in the pound, the question would beg to be asked why he didn't do that to start with. After all, his primary duty is to get the maximum for the creditors, although many will argue that he isn't exactly the most ethical administrator about. That would be an increase of 50% over the 20p, therefore substantial, but still less than half of the Griffin figure, which I take it relies on the football creditors priority rule being overturned. If it were overturned, presumably the Android could also match those figures himself, but naturally he didn't wish to rock the boat and suggest that the unsecured creditors wait until the court case was decided. In any event, it must be crystal clear to the Android that since the developments of the past couple of days, he is now on a hiding to nothing and that there is no way that the CVA he proposes will be accepted by 75% of the creditors. Furthermore, it seems likely that if HMRC take up their option to challenge Andronikou as administrator, they will raise questions over the way he has acted and also ask how the statement of financial affairs debt more than doubled since they took the Skates to court under the winding-up order. If Andronikou is removed as administrator on grounds of his professional shortcomings, would he still be paid or receive a much reduced fee? He might also receive further admonishments from the profession, or even better, debarred from acting as an administator in future.

There's a business contact of mine who is a great bloke and is well known locally as a breeder and supplier of snakes. He is based at Havant. His name is Midge Piasco. Lots about him on Google, but his own site is http://www.royalpythonmorphs.co.uk

Fair enough. But surely this proposal is reliant anyway on the HMRC winning its case in court to overturn the priority given to footballing creditors. As I understand it, the current situation regarding the parachute payments was that it would be ringfenced to go to football creditors and that the residue of any monies remaining was the 20% for unsecured creditors. The Android had wrung his hands theatrically and cried crocodile tears at the unjust implications of this rule, while secretly rubbing his hands with glee that Chainrai who had appointed him would benefit at the expense of the taxman and local businesses and charities. Now that this other rival administrators has come up with these proposals, couldn't the Android agree with them that these figures are workable, but only in the event of a change in the ruling on the football debt priority? Actually, the Android is totally snookered by the intervention of Griffins, isn't he? There is no way that most of the creditors will take 20p/25p in the pound over 5 years rather than wait to see whether the football debt priority is overturned and they get 65p to 99p in the pound.

So the Bestest fans in the World ™ from Skatesmuff have over three times as many fans with banning orders than us. Yep, they truly are the best.

But surely the essence of what Griffins is proposing is that Gaydamak gets nothing and those extra monies be transferred towards payment of the unsecured creditors, thus raising their payment from the 20p to 65p in the pound. That is how I read it. Effectively they propose to put a gun against Gaydamak's head by threatening to prove that he was trading illegally whilst insolvent unless he withdraws his claims to money owed to him. Bridge too far and Gemmel take the same view as I do in their posts. Have we somehow got the wrong end of the stick? Where you say that you hope that the other creditors know of Griffins' proposals, there is no reason that I can see why Griffins should not have sent a copy of their document or an internet link to it, to all of the creditors. After all, the list of creditors is available in the public domain.

There was some scally on The News site called West Sai saying something very similar. Apparently, he was accused of being in cahoots with some other fella called Chin who also posts on there. Those Skates are getting paranoid; the whole World is against them and none of it is their fault.