Wes Tender

quote: thick Skate in The News: This just about sums up how out of touch your average (or below average) Skate really is regarding current affairs affecting their poxy little club. Most on here are perfectly clear what the role of an administrator is, (or at least a proper professional and ethical one), having had recent experience of one ourselves. So we know that it is the Android's responsibility to administer the affairs of the club as the de facto chief executive to minimise outgoings until a buyer is found and to get the best deal possible for the creditors. It is not his job to appoint a manager or a chief executive until such times as a buyer has been found, as that buyer would naturally have his own views as to whom he would like in those positions. I laughed out loud at another article in The News where the Android stated that he was appointing Limpitt because he was seen to be totally honest and whiter than white. So far more honest and with greater integrity and morality than you, Android! It is not Android's place to tell all and sundry that saleable assets like players cannot be sold below some fantasy inflated figure. Neither is he particularly to be concerned to as what is in the club's best interests above those of the creditors. If he has attempted to inflate the amounts owed by the creditors and the football debt in an effort to minimise the percentage held by one creditor (HMRC) so that they cannot block the CVA, then surely that is illegal. It seems not to have filtered through the collective consciousness of Skates like this one, that the HMRC are going to challenge the priority given to footballing creditors and that if they succeed, then footballers, their agents and clubs owed money by the Skates will have to take their place alongside the ordinary creditors. Under those circumstances, as has already been pointed out by several posters sharper and more switched on than the Skates posters, there will be a real disincentive for unsecured creditors to vote for the CVA if they would gain a much higher payout if the courts found in favour of the HMRC's legal challenge. So it is a bit premature saying well played to the Android. Naturally, we over here hope that HMRC has played a blinder, letting the Android have enough rope to hang himself. They need to make an example of the Skates to deter other clubs going down the same route. They also need to teach the Administrators and Insolvency practitioners that they will not allow them to play games to lessen the influence of the taxman acting on behalf of all right-minded citizens who deplore priority being given to mega-rich footballers over small local traders, schools and charities.

There are changes of opinion and then there are complete about turns on matters of deep routed principle. I'm inclined to believe that the old class warrior took the second route. It reminds me of the satirical slant on the party's anthem "I've got the Foreman's job at last, so stuff the Red Flag up your arse". Granted that Tebbitt and Prescott are opposite sides of the coin party wise, but otherwise similar types of old guard politicians. But whereas Tebbitt brings a breath of fresh air to the Lords, Prescott will bring the stale whiff of hypocrisy.

We're only keeping this going because it annoys you so. We keep on baiting the hook and you keep on biting. You keep on attempting to defend the indefensible and I don't blame you trying to stick up for your poxy little club, but you just keep on getting shot down in flames. The trouble is, the Skates are such an easy target when there is no moral high ground for them to stand on. The end game approaches and with luck those responsible for illegally trading while insolvent will be jailed, the taxman will get the crazy football creditors rule overturned so that those who attempted to screw the club for their own personal gain will lose out and the local creditors and charities will get much more than their paltry 4% per annum over the next 5 years. With luck, that fake administrator will also be barred from practising by the insolvency and administration profession. We might have much to thank the Skates for in the longer term, as they have brought so much disgrace to top flight football's image, that future rules imposed by the governing bodies will ensure that some of the top clubs will have their financial advantage curtailed and Southampton which is run without debt will reap a huge advantage and prosper. So thanks, Corp Ho to the Skates. Not only are they the very best entertainment value, but they will indirectly help us achieve heights that your lot will never reach again.

I thank them both that I have a club to support. When one sees the way that the Skates are headed towards oblivion just one year after we endured the same uncertainty, I would have thought that any sensible fans would have been only too happy with how lucky we have been that ML and Cortese came to our rescue. All of these minor blips are probably due to it being half-term and too many being off school with too much time on their hands. Thank God there is the World Cup available to keep idle minds occupied and then the new season will be upon us. A flying start with quality new players will have all this petty stuff forgotten soon enough.

I wholeheartedly concur that Harding is probably the division's best left back. If it wasn't for Lambert, the division's top striker, Harding would have been voted our best player. He's the most consistently good player in our squad, IMO; Mr reliable.

And Corporate Ho wondered why we are still carrying on with this thread. There's still plenty of meat on this particular bone yet. But a lot of the interest in the Skates is because the state of our own well run and well financed club is a bit yawn-making in this between seasons lull. There is the same excitement and nervous tension, recriminations, dashed hopes and worry about liquidation that we suffered at this time a year ago. We can now relive it by proxy with our main rival's situation, happy in the knowledge that the worse their situation becomes, the more thankful we can be that we were never as badly run as them and that there is little or no hope that they will have an owner like ours to rescue them. Oh what a joy is our schadenfreude.

So I presume that you lived through that era yourself, but that your recollection of it differs from mine. You might think that I was joking, but if you don't believe what I say, then I am equally capable of expressing an opinion that it is you who speak in jest. I didn't say that education standards had fallen for everybody, as a generalisation seldom covers 100%. You might argue that more pupils than ever before have achieved exam results (or passes which include course work to be precise) than ever before. I will counter argue and state that the exams are easier to pass than before. And instead of just dismissing my assertion that the utilities are better now than when they were nationalised, I make the assumption that you were actually old enough to have experienced it all first hand. If so, kindly tell me which ones you consider to have been better as a nationalised industry. I've already highlighted some that I believe to have been examples of failures. How about you debating my choices with some counter arguments instead of just taking the easy option and saying that it is tosh?

Tried to keep up with news on Saints and Skates via News Now, but seems they have had website problems. But having just got through, I can convey the good news that the Skates are now no longer listed officially as a Premiership club.

This is what I also believe. Until a few weeks ago it would have been a bit more pie in the sky, but rumblings from the footballing powers that be, are suggesting that clubs will not be allowed to enter the Champions League unless they have enough income to cover their debt. That means that most of the top Premiership clubs will struggle to meet those requirements unless they live much more within their means. By the time we get back into the Premiership, we will be the model debt free and well run club, able to compete on the much more level playing field. As for any required support for either Lowe or Cortese, then I really cannot be arsed to dignify that with a response. It is the most ludicrous thread title for some time.

I don't agree. The entire Aftermath LP was superb for starters. As for Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, that was indeed a seminal work in its time.

What is really amusing is that there are some from this forum who post on the Skate's forum under aliases. They tell it how it is with the Skates, warts and all and are lauded as sage and knowledgeable. Naturally, if it became known that they were Saints fans, then they would be called Scummers and told to F off. I suspect that some of that consensus that was arrived at by Skates on your forums was instigated by Saints posters incognito.

Which government are we talking about here? The one that's just been kicked out, or the coalition one that's just come in? But anyway, there's a vast difference between the education system and the health system, which renders comparison between the two of them useless. Attainment of a certain level of education is something measurable and comparable. What would the hospital league tables be based on exactly? Amount of time to treatment? I thought that there was already a target waiting time. Number of patients cured v killed? So where was I being unreasonable in my assessment of the CVAs? Saintandy further expounds on his admiration of the CVA system of measuring a school's progress as an alternative to straight exam pass rates, but it seems all pie in the sky. How is the pupil measured initially in order that an objective assessment can be made of his starting point? Presumably because he has taken some sort of exam. How is his improvement to be measured after a certain time has passed other than by taking another exam? Andy goes on to say that a true assessment of a school's progress can only be measured once several other factors have been taken into account. Presumably he is talking about such things as the social factors surrounding the areas where the schools are located, such as income levels, employment levels, i.e. social deprivation, language difficulties in some high immigration areas, all sorts of factors dreamed up as reasons why schools in some areas might be expected to do better than those in others. Ultimately, it is all a futile exercise designed to provide excuses for the poor teachers and education authorities to hide behind. Complicate it all until it is nigh impossible to assess clearly and provide a range of excuses to cover up incompetance. The most accurate and straightforward barometer by which further education is measured is on the number of exam passes at certain grades. That is also how many employers narrow down a short list of applicants too. It therefore makes most sense for the education system to aim towards assuring that pupils are primed towards that end and that is what caring parents also want their taxes paid towards too.

If this thread bothers you so much, don't attend. Simple really for one as intelligent as your good self. Of course, I was being sarcastic, but I'm sure you worked that out for yourself.

I immediately warm to the idea of school league tables as it was introduced by Thatcher who knew what parents wanted for their children's education; a clear and easy measure of a school's performance. These CVAs are the result of typically woolly thinking of the left, a fudge to obscure the real picture, so that poor performances can be excused because of those several factors that you mention above. I hope that now that there is the change of Government, that this experiment with the CVAs will be dropped, no doubt allowing for substantial cuts in the bureaucracy that is employed to administer it. Perhaps some of the money saved by the cuts in the number of pen-pushers can go towards the employment of more and better teachers in those deprived areas, allowing smaller class sizes.

Reflecting exactly the same levels of those things from amongst the juries all over Europe. Israel for example gave the German song no points. I wonder why that was? It was certainly one of the top 10 songs in the competition, although not the best IMO. Likewise, although nothing special, ours was certainly not the worst either and would have fared better had the lad been singing it on behalf of another country.

I'm pleased that you thrived under the Comprehensive system, but it is difficult to generalise, as I'm sure you would agree. There are certainly some Comprehensives in parts of the country where despite streaming, the standards are very poor and where had there remained a Grammar School, those brighter pupils would have had better chances of doing well. The best results overall in Hamphire come from the private sector, many of whose pupils might otherwise have gone to those Grammar schools had they not been abolished. There are pupils in private schools who do not do well, as there are also pupils in some failing state schools who do well regardless. Which privatised utilities and industries are not better than when they were nationalised in your opinion? Some have taken longer than others to adapt back to the private sector, like the railways, but they worked pretty well before privatisation, were awful when nationalised and seem to be heading in the right direction now. Nationalisation of what became British Telecom was a disaster that has thrived since privatisation. Another similar example was British Leyland then arguably producing the worst cars in British motoring history. Things like the steel industry or shipbuilding could no longer justify the pouring of public money into the bottomless pit they had become when faced with competition from overseas.

As I said before; where did I defend or condone his racist views?

I agree. I can't really see a plausible explanation as to why an FA high flyer would particularly wish to take over at Pompey. Even now, their position is precarious and either HMRC or unsecured creditors could refuse the CVA. Presumably Lampitt has a good idea what would come Pompey's way in points deductions either for their financial state, or in the event of criminal charges arising from Storrie, Redcrapp and Mandaric's court visits. He takes a gamble also, purely on the Android's word, that the running of the club is sustainable on players' wages of £10 million a year. Looking at the situation dispassionately, why is a chief executive being appointed at this stage anyway, before the CVA has been approved, or a buyer found for the club? A new owner would appoint his own chief executive, suggesting that there will be no new owner and that Chainrai has approved this appointment. And the usual situation is surely that the administrator acts as chief executive until such times as the club exits administration. If the FA wished there to be a forensic examination into the club's financial affairs, I would have thought that they had the power to have brought that about anyway, under threat of throwing the Skates out of British football unless they co-operated. It is all very curious and I am not at the least bit surprised that conspircy theories abound in an attempt to explain it.

Did I defend his racist views? Sorry, I don't see where I did that? Will you kindly point it out to me? Although you might disagree with his views, presumably you defend his right to hold those views, or are you bigotted against freedom of speech? You obviously have such a closed mind that you cannot countenance the possibility that because a person's views on one matter are disagreeable to you, that his views on another matter might be sound. Where we are discussing matters political, then presumably on the basis of an extension of this argument, you like every single policy of the party you support, do you?

I don't see much in the way of debate coming from you. It's a simple let off to state that the those who hold opinions that you don't agree with are thick, rather than arguing against them, isn't it? It's also a ploy to make oneself look clever, deriding others as thick for not holding the same views as you, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Socialists aren't against people being rich, as they then become a target for high taxation based on envy, malice and spite. Socialists like Prescott enjoy the trappings of wealth, ignoring the fact that they are therefore hypocrites, often railing against private education and health care, but not in the case of them or their families. If people achieve wealth under a socialist regime, they then find ways of avoiding the crippling taxation, thus deriving the State of any benefit that might have accrued from revenue from their taxes. They want everybody to fulfil their potential by levelling everybody downwards, so they bring in Comprehensive Education for example, so that the gifted pupils are held back by the dunces. They decimated the Grammar schools, deeming them to be elitist, but there was equality of opportunity to enter them provided that the child was bright enough. The same applies to Universities, where in the pursuit of equality of opportunity the value of a degree has been devalued, because it is easier to obtain one than ever before. The trouble about reading books, is distinguishing which ones have real merit because they are impartial and objective. I supect that your reading matter is written by authors whose opinions you would like to hear justifying your own beliefs. Please define "proper" books. Rather than reading about these political doctrines, it is far better to judge them on the basis of one's own personal experiences, although I accept that requires one to be of a certain age. Failing that, then the only way to be objective and balanced is to read books from both sides of the political spectrum and form one's own opinion as to the merits of each. I certainly have experience of Socialism under the Wilson regime which proved that nationalism of the utilities did not work, really high taxation of the wealthy was counter-productive and that education standards have fallen because of the abolition of so many Grammar Schools.

Well, that must be a comfort for you. The fact that most of them are just as prone to break the rules too, is probably their motivation towards their agreement. As for the general voting public, they're far more inclined to think that here is another politician responsible for the formation of the laws of the land and yet incapable himself of abiding by the rules of their own exclusive club that is funded by our taxpayers' money.

He'll probably be invited back at some stage and be another of those politicians like Mandelson who have blotted their copybook ethically or morally, but who seem to have some teflon coating that allows them to thrive regardless. Aside from the rights and wrongs of it all, at the very least he showed very poor judgement, which isn't a quality that one wishes to see in those at Cabinet level. Furthermore, if he was prepared to flout the rules on this expenses matter because he did not wish to have his sexuality revealed, then presumably he could have been open to blackmail to hush it up. Where is the dividing line?

If he didn't misuse his expenses, then what is all the fuss about? And why has he submitted himself to a committee of enquiry? In 2006 MPs were banned from leasing property from their partners, so he broke the rules on expenses. All your caveats and whining about how the taxpayers got a good deal do not alter that fact, nor does his excuse that he didn't declare it because he was shy about the fact of his homosexuality becoming known. Some have called his actions stupidity, but when you claim that he is a man of integrity, then he clearly isn't.

What a lot of cant. If he had real integrity, then he wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I know what a Lib/Dem cheerleader you are, so it is not surprising that you try to defend him. I had to have a little chuckle when the situation was explained on the radio news, that Laws was paying rent to his male lover and it called to mind another high profile Liberal and some other connection with rent. Does his integrity stretch as far as resigning his seat? Regardless of how he tried to expain it all away, the electorate in other constituencies who had MPs who had made misuse of their expenses claims had the opportunity to vote them out. The electorate of Yeovil didn't.