Joensuu

I too struggled for the bigger games (normally made the assumption that tickets couldn't be had, so it wasn't worth trying) - and even for the smaller games normally ended up only being able to get a seat in high up one of the corners. I can add at least 3 other heads from my immeadiate friends and family who fall into the same category, and would have come more frequently if there were extra spare seats.

Looks like Cameron has given the rest of the world a figure to pin the blame on if the Euro collapses. Mind you I don't think he had much choice - and IMO made the right decision. But he has left himself, and ourselves open to having the blame laid to rest at our door - "if only those arrogant British hadn't scuppered our best chances of saving the Euro..." etc. A few weeks back Merkel had the choice of pulling out of the Euro, or backing it to the hilt - she has publically thrown her weight behind it [Although, I've heard rumour that the printing presses in the Deutshe mint are ranking up piles with DM printed on them as a secret contingency plan]. So while Cameron has done the right thing, and Britain has done the right thing by not getting involved in a currency which was doomed to failure (without a full fiscal union), I'm not sure that we will manage to escape the blame. We are now the black sheep, ostracized and isolated. We have to hope that the blame is directed at the crazy overspending in the Med, but I'm a bit worried that China, and the US (and most of Europe) will see a currency that could have been saved, having it's best chances of avoiding collapse scuppered by the self interest of the declining power in the corner. Still, I don't see that Cameron had any other option.

Fascinating read, just wish people would bring their antiquated and unfounded deity theories into otherwise sensible discussion.

Rule of thumb on privatisation - will this industry have true competion? If you have to apply fake competion though say punctuality figures, the industry is better off being nationalised. If however a truely competitive market could exist, then why not privatise. Trousers, your trains might be shiny, and somewhat punctual, but they are stupidly overpriced.

Is the data being sold or given away? The pharma industry has tonnes of cash - and this data would save a company millions on market research... I bet we could persuade someone like ICI to cough up several hundred million for this each year if the government plays it right...

I've kept quiet on this subject, as I can see value in both arguments. Were I in the Public sector, and were it my generous pension scheme being slashed, I'd be livid. I'd most certainly be joining the protests, and arguing with numpties like Dune. But it's not my generous pension scheme being slashed. I'd love to have a pension scheme generous enough to be slashed. When I retire I'll be lucky to get a pension of £500 per month (at today's value). Quite simply, private sector pensions for people on good salaries simply won't provide any form of quality when it comes to retirement. This has got me thinking. I'm paying tax, in fact I'm paying loads of tax (over £1000 this month alone). Public sector pensions in 2011 are by far the most expensive government expenditure (£122 billion). As such, the biggest beneficiary of my taxes are Public pensions. Why should I be paying so much tax to fund other people's pensions, when I could only dream of having a similar pension in retirement?If I were to put myself back in the shoes of a Public sector employee, I'd answer the question with 'It should be the private pensions which should be increased, not the public decreased'. And I'd be right. We should all have a quality retirement to look forward to after years of employment. But unfortunately, this is also idealistic - where does the money come from? How can a private company turn a profit, with large pensions added to the books? Especially during a recession, many companies would struggle to afford the extra burden (Certainly, for my employers the additional c. £120k pa would have exceeded their 2010 profits). Of course, were the government run like a business, the Department of Welfare and Pensions would be the first in line for a substantial cut. So I have to conclude that Private pensions are not ‘retirable’ - whereas public pensions are not sustainable. A sensible solution would be to somehow try to get both to meet in the middle, ideally with everyone in the UK getting a monthly pension contribution of c. 10-12% (made up of say 5% employer + 5% employee?). This would mean both small public sector cuts, and small private sector rises. If the current imbalance is maintained the divisions will grow - certainly I've noticed a growing resentment in the private sector of the public sector's pensions. Having said all of that, the real problem we face is that as a country we aren't earning enough to keep spending as much as we already do. I can't understand how any government (irrespective of party) can justify running a deficit. As Pompey well know, if your outgoings exceed your income eventually the proverbial will hit the fan. If the balance were the other way round, and each year our government tucked some cash away, the interest on that surplus could start to pay for improved services, without the need to increase tax - surely that combines the dreams of both the Left and the Right (both welfare with prudence anyone?).

My employer will match a whopping 3%. If I work until retirement I will have an annual pension of less than 1/5th of my salary. Is it worth it?

So you're not opposed to an expansion per se, but instead you are opposed to anyone who is 'deluded' enough to suggest that over the next few years an expansion might not be out of the question. Do you feel embarrassed by fans who are suggesting that an expansion isn't completely outside the realms of possibility? If not, why don't you just let them get on with it - it simply shouldn't bother you. If however you are embarrassed, you seriously need to get out more. There are far greater embarrassments associated with this club. In future, just a tip, if you want the '44k expansion' threads to disapear, simply stop feeding them with your irrational hatred. If you weren't fueling a debate the thread would die a natural death. The more you try to shout everyone down, the more people will argue back. If indeed your anger of this issue is genuine, your best way to put out the flames would be to ignore them. If this topic doesn't interest you, or mildly annoys you, simply stop posting on it. Honestly, the more you try to keep topics like this alive the more people will assume you are simply trolling. [Last post of the day]

Which is all perfectly sensible. But my question was, why are you so impassioned about it?

Turkish, you seem more passionately opposed to this concept than any of it's advocates seem to be in support. What's your problem with it? I just can't understand how anyone can be so inflamed in opposition to this. You haven't got money staked against it in Ladbrokes or something? Or is it that you just like the trolling?

Not sure... there certainly seem to be a few of us on there: [TABLE=width: 100%] [TR] [TD=class: chatmsgtime]2:01 [/TD] [TD=class: chatmsgtext viewer_text][TABLE] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]Comment From Toast fingerscrossed!! [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Sorry for plagiarising your name Corp.

Not meaning to give you grief like the others on here... but what with tuition fees and all, this is exactly the sort of degree that isn't worth doing. My company have just taken on a Grad with a 1st in Computer Science from Warwick. Despite over 100 applications we were his only offer in 10 months of trying. I'm just saying, it seems tough for graduates right now, even good ones, with good degrees, from good Unis. [10 years ago it was all be it different - but I do recon my mate who graduated in Surf Science from Plymouth might regret it now... he'd never admit that of course]

A run of bad form (caused by any number of things, say loss of a key player, loss of morale, addition of a bad apple in the window, the lack of introducing the correct new player in the window, the failure to agree a price for Jos, loss of Adkins, loss of Nicola etc). Basically, we are our own biggest threat IMO.

I can see it both ways. Purely in terms of adding value to property, I would doubt that the 'real' value of the club would be raised by the value of expansion. However, it's not quite the same as owning a car, there are only fairly small number of well-supported clubs out there, so frankly, either the buyer meets the asking price, or they choose not to buy the club. The only way the person investing in the club's infrastructure can loose out is if the need to sell, and are forced to reduce the price. No, it didn't add £32m to the value of the share price. Simply because the stadium wasn't an asset, but was a liability of the club (i.e. it wasn't fully ours until the mortage was paid). However, if paid in full, and generating income, the stadium and any expansion to it would count as an asset. (And frankly, now that we are in private hands, the price is something which is entirely up the the owners - if the Liebherr Estate increase their minimum sale price from say £80m to say £120m that's entirely their descision). Agreed. Of course cost doesn't equal value. The Liebherr's could quite easily spend £40m on more seats, then decide that they want to add £50m or more to their minimum asking price (you can be certain they won't add less than they have spent to their price!).Btw, I'm not saying that the Liebherr's are looking to sell, more that everything has a value and will be sold if the price is right. In the meanwhile the Liebherr's can sit back and make a very tidy 'interest' of say 6-8% their say £40m investment.

I'm probably wrong, but wouldn't the value (or hypothetical asking price) of the club be increased by the cost of any improvements made to its infrastructure? As such wouldn't then the extra income of c. £3-4million pa brought in by say an 8k expansion, actually be considered almost as annual interest against a, say, £40 million investment - you'd be hard pressed to find an interest rate like that in a bank...

Now this is an interesting post (rare for this place inbetween all the Hypo-Dune-Turkish nonsense). I wonder is Nigel has seen these stats.

Just an observation, but Dune hasn't posted since last night... 2+2 = ?

Simple solution: give generous benefits for 18 months (based on say 80% of your last wage), then cut them to below the current minimum afterwards. One exceptions being single parents, and the genuinely disabled. After 18 months, the right to get the generous level of dole needs to be earnt back by paying tax. Everyone wins.

Nice idea... but what would Cardiff and Swansea do?

If only we had a fairer voting system eh?

http://i51.tinypic.com/11seeww.png

Try www.kayak.com

If you are planning on using national rail within the zones (not the 'Overground'), you will find it cheaper to avoid Oyster, and buy a travelcard instead...

Agreed. I don't see that there is any definite evidence one way or the other. I also agree that we shouldn't be throwing money away. However, the process of building/redeveloping a stadium takes years. It could easily take 5 years to get any new development planned, approved, funded, and implemented. If Cortese's ambitions are achieved on the pitch, I'm confident our 32k won't be enough in 4-5 years time. As such, I feel this is exactly the right time to be planning ahead, and drawing up a series of options (both for various redevelopments, and for various new-build options). Sure drawing up a range of plans might cost say £50-100k, that's a lot of money, but not a ridiculous amount to spend right now for a team with our ambitions. IMO, now is a good time to plan ahead (to avoid us frittering money away on half-thought-through plans in the future).