Sergei Gotsmanov

Technically did we sign AM for £1m but only paid £750 because he did not play thirty games? Fuzzy memory but did Branfoot not play him because he would have played his thirtieth game and we would be subject to the remainder of the transfer fee. I am probably wrong!

Thanks

Forgive my ignorance Steve but how did the budget effect limited company contractors? I should really know as I probably to an extent fall into this camp.

I am not sure I buy this 'AM could not afford the £1.5m to activate their release clause' - if it meant they sold the player for twice as much as the £6.8m then I would lend them the money myself at the right price. It is bad news for the club but I just hope that RK was well briefed on what was going on because it sounded like he expected him to sign.

Speculating, as is all we can really do, the deal does seem to have stalled with Toby going to Spurs. As has been said, if Toby wanted to go to Spurs surely the deal will have gone through by now. Maybe he is happy to stay at Saints but can see the merits of a move so will go with who wants him most. From our perspective signing Toby is a massive symbolic move because it sends all of the right messages to the other players and critically to a manager who is likely to be courted by other clubs in the remaining part of his contract.

To be fair Chris that is actually a hell of a lot of money to just 'take a hit on'. This is not FIFA manager.

From Saints perspective we should factor in that it is Spurs that we are up against and if there is any loophole we will exploit it. I would suspect that the way MP left us would have generated plenty of bad feeling between us and Spurs

I would be inclined to agree with that. I would put this down to the fact Koeman would be quite persuasive, the unsuccessful spell at Real Madrid making him wary of a dodgy move and the fact that enjoyed his year with Saints last year. I would add that if I was to invest it would hinge on how many Saints players and their wives attended his wedding.

I actually agree with Clyne. He has done enough to be picked for England and not getting a game sends out all of the wrong messages - the team is picked based on which club you play your football for. That will be proved when he leaves and becomes an England regular.

Great story that. Proper person.

There will of course be boundary changes to cancel out Labour's Northern 'bonus'. That is worth 20 seats apparently. There is of course Scotland and I cannot see how they will not vote tribally from now on. We will however all be sick of the current mob in five years because that is how it normally works.

I suspect you might actually be right!

Apart from in 1992 when he attracted more votes than any other leader has ever achieved.

Very jealous. Lovely part of the world. Enjoy the red squirrels.

Rarely agreed with him but he was always articulate when arguing that bears don't **** in the woods. Lets hope his forum absence is short term and he can use his time away for a period of contemplation and a hair cut. I concluded he was alright.

Probably wants to run for Mayor

The biggest issue for the reformed southern State would be immigration.

I know but he comes across well and principled, is not a career politician and has served his country. He feels right and somebody should be speaking to him. Andy Burnham is too much of a Union man and has the baggage of Stafford. Chuka comes across as too metropolitan (hardly going to win Scotland back) and a career politician with an eye for himself. Yvette Cooper has probably lost her appetite for politics. Liz Kendall I have no idea. Could be a surprise.

So that means Andy Burnham will not win then? I would persuade Dan Jarvis to stand. He seems to have a lot to offer.

So what would happen if a local coffee shop had displayed a blackboard asking people to admit to voting labour so they could pay 20% more to subsidise other people's coffee and to pay for the extra business costs associated with new regulations and taxes? The sign would be vandalised and 'Tory Scum' scrawled on the door. The local student Union would announce an immediate boycott and demonstration. Customers would be given leaflets by scruffy looking middle class students who in-between yelling abuse at customers and staff organise a smear campaign on social media using the latest top of the range I-pads and i-phones . Martin Freeman announces that he will not use the coffee shop again before it emerges he has shares in Costa and has been drinking in Starbucks for years. The coffee shop eventually closes and two hard working and decent Poles, a Latvian and a Romanian lose their jobs.

A modern day case of the Wilmslow Boy. I think that legally if on probation he has no rights. This is however not about being late or sloppy it is about an accusation of dishonesty. That is a considerable slur on your poor son's reputation. Do not play the little man and walk away. Demand to speak to the manager who has made the allegation and ask him to provide his evidence. If he cannot then substantiate the claim then that is really quite shocking. The public are outraged by miscarriage of justices and I would point out that you will be taking this to the media. Maybe set up a facebook campaign to highlight their behaviour. Oh and when you contact the manager start to the phone call off by telling him that the phone call is being recorded for legal purposes. He will take you more seriously.

Not sure the opening line was called for. You can dislike big business but still understand its value to the national economy. The strength of small business's is how many there are and their power at the ballot box. There are over 5m of them - upset them and that is a lot votes. Part of Labour's downfall was their resentment and lack of understanding of business in general. It is reputed (but quite possibly Tory propaganda) that Milliband went to the FT to seek in endorsement. The FT is quite pink politically as well as on paper and based on the Europe referendum it was not out of the question that they would back him. That was until Milliband asked why companies have to pay shareholders. Until Labour become business friendly again they will not be electable. The Tories will change the electoral boundaries which will cancel out their historical Northern bonus, while the Scots will vote tribally until they are given the chance to discover the shortfall in the budget. If they lose the next election that will mean that in 2025 they will not have won an election for twenty years. In reality of course they will win again and a good job too. Stability is great but governments need freshening up every few years and the electorate will allow them to shift back to the centre ground and vote them in possibly sooner than you would think.

What the left will not understand is that small business hate big business more than they do .

I think we found out who the real Muppets were on Thursday.

I would suggest that the 'tractor building' wealth creation model you put forward has been demonstrated to fail. I think that if 1% of the population pay 27% of the taxes then you should try to turn the 1% into 2% and you will raise even more taxes and have even better public services. The price you pay is that there are lots of very rich people. The point being that we can both have differing viewpoints about how to realise the same objective of good public services. Yours is left of centre mine is right, that does not make me a c***t'.