Joensuu

The stats point to Brett being the better of the two as well: Premier: BO: 17 goals in 95 (0.18 goals per game) LB: 0 in 3 (0) Champ: BO: 30 in 150 (0.2) LB: N/A League 1: BO: 2 in 18 (0.11) LB: 47 in 105 (0.45) League 2: BO: 36 in 102 (0.35) LB: 0 in 13 (0) League 3: BO: 27 in 49 (0.55) LB: 0 in 3 (0) Conf Prem: BO: N/A LB: 1 in 4 (0.25) Nrn Prem Lg: BO: 32 in 54 (0.59) LB: N/A Career to date: BO: 144 in 468 (0.31) LB: 48 in 128 (0.37) Both work endlessly, running about and pulling defenders with them. Both create opportunities for their partners. IMO while Lee might (just) have a better finish, Brett has more pace - as such, despite having similar workrates, Brett's pace can pull a defensive line out of shape more easily than Lee can. If you take the age difference out of the equation, Ormerod offers more to a team than Barnard.

Agreed. Unless the £125 is restricted to previous season ticket holders, loads of people will buy them at that price. I go to about 6-10 home games a year. At £125 it would make financial sense to buy a season ticket, but leave my seat empty for half the games. People like me should be banned from getting £125 season tickets IMO.

Think you're doing John Smith a slight injustice.

I am offended by the implication in the title of this thread.

Not really. According to Exeter fans, he was woeful when they were forced to play him there. The only position he has played well in to date is the left side of the centre back pair. (I wonder how he'd play on the left side of a back three?)

Just a stab in the dark, but I'd guess that the league will divide up something like this (there will obviously be one or two exceptions): Challengers: Southampton Sheffield Wednesday Peterborough Utd Millwall or Swindon Town Playoff contenders: Huddersfield Town Charlton Athletic Colchester United Bristol Rovers Brighton and Hove Albion Plymouth Argyle Mid table (looking over their shoulders): Brentford Walsall Milton Keynes Dons Carlisle United Yeovil Town Oldham Athletic Leyton Orient Exeter City Notts County Favourites for the drop: Tranmere Rovers Hartlepool United Bournemouth Rochdale Dagenham or Aldershot or Morecambe or Rotherham

Not according to the 2009 'Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings' published by the Office of National Statistics. This shows the average wages of public verses private sector to be: Full Time Private: £24,970 Full Time Public: £27,686 Part Time Private: £7,645 Part Time Public: £10,550 Having worked as a contractor in various public departments, I have learnt that broadly speaking colleagues working at a similar level to me, get either a similar wage, or perhaps a little bit more than I do. They do, however, have 50% more annual leave, and approximately 3x the pension. Agreed. That is usually the angle I take. The ideal outcome would be for the private sector to improve the pensions it offers. Unfortuantely, 15 years ago many companies realised that their pension schemes were unsustainable, and acted swiftly to protect their future. There is no way the private sector will return to large pensions - they simply can't afford it. Like it or not, the public sector is paying an exeptionally large contribution towards it's employees pensions. At the same time the public sector is spending vastly more than its income, and there is concensus across all the parties that significant cuts will need to be made. Pensions must surely be high on the list to be trimmed. And unfortuately, until the field is levelled, there will be growing resent (justifiably) coming from the private sector.

6% Employee + 14% Employer = 20% contribution. I'm not aware of many private employers who are willing to pay more than 5% (let alone more than 10%). My private employer offers 4% employee + 4% employer. To get a pension as generous as yours I would need to increase my contribution from 4% to 16% of my wage... ouch. Oh well, bang goes any chance of me getting a comfortable retirement, wonder if there are any public sector jobs going... Is that an average pension for all public sector workers or for an average pension for all full time public sector workers? Many people in the public sector work part time, and as such should only expect to receive a significantly reduced pension.

... is that because the Twenty-second Amendment prevents it? NB, please look up 'socialism' in a dictionary, and then please explain why it relates in any way to the centre-right UK government led by Blair and Brown. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though socialists were left of centre?

Are these contributions matched by the employer? I've been urging my employer to up their contributions for several years now, to no joy. Still it gives me a lovely warm feeling that if I stay on my current salary for the next 35 years, I might just get to retire on £7-10k pa. I know of at least one local government employee whose salary is a bit less than mine, but whose pension is already estimated to be c. £20-25k pa. I just wish I could look forward to his retirement (but of course, that's an argument for increasing private pensions, not decreasing public ones).

Spain - Socialist Italy - Conservative France - Centre Right Ireland - Centre Left Greece - Socialist Canada - Conservative Portugal - Socialist (Centre Right President) Germany - Centre Right Hungary - Socialist Israel - Centre Right Iceland - Centre Right (2007-2009) Centre Left (post Iceland crisis) Belgium - Liberal Singapore - Conservative Japan - Centre Right (2005-2009) Liberal (2009 onwards) So I make that: 5 Left wing 8 Right wing 1 Liberal

Whitey Grandad is correct, we need to cut £150 billion. Trimming MoD pensions (£5.6 billion) isn't going to do it. I can't see how the cuts can be made without making radical changes to either Welfare or Health* *NB, Health budgets ringfenced by Cameron.

I'm struggling to find this funny

WG, I'm in full agreement with you that we need to cut more than is currently being discussed. Obviously we can't do this in the next few years, but we can't leave it too long. We need to reduce government spending, so that we can begin reducing our debt. I'm worried that the Government's solution to this is to artificially stimulate inflation, while keeping interest rates low - thereby erroding a large amount of the debt owed. I am a firm believer in living within your means, and though Blair and Brown were doing a superb job until 2000 when they both seemed to lose the plot and start spending stupid amounts. PFI was a ridculous idea, and should never have got through parliament (if only we'd had a hung parliament back then eh? Might have prevented the silly excesses). Question is, where do you reduce government spending? The biggest spending departments are (all figures in Billions!): £135.7 - Department for Works & Pensions (inc £62.7 State Pensions; £17.2 Housing Benefit; £16.2 Disability Benefit) £109.5 - HM Treasury (inc £85.5 Bank bailouts, which will probably be largely recooped) £109.4 - Dept of Health (inc £94.5 NHS; £13.4 NHS pensions) £63.2 - Dept Children, Schools & Families (£42.8 Schools; £10.9 Teachers pensions) £44.6 - MOD (£10 Army; £7.7 RAF; £7.3 Navy; £6.2 Equipment; £5.6 Pay & pensions) £36.8 - Dept Commuities & Local Govt (£25.4 Local Govt; £7.3 Housing) £34.1 - HMRC (£23.7 Tax Credits; £11.2 Child benefit) £33 - Devolved Scotland (£11.5 Health) £24.1 - Debt interest £23 - Dept Innov Uni Skills £16.3 - Devolved NI £15 - Devolved Wales £10 - Home Office £9.7 - MoJ £7.5 - Cabinet Office £6.8 - Culture Media & Sport £5.2 - International Development £3 - DEFRA £2.1 - Energy & Climate Change £1.9 - Foreign & Commonwealth Office £1.4 - NI Office

Good spot JB. He does indeed rank rather high for expense claims: 2008/09 141st highest 2007/08 353rd highest 2006/07 452nd highest

Shame about Cruddas. For me the first comment after this article sums it up best: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/labour-leadership-jon-cruddas

I'm not suggesting Surman is any better than we already have, but he certainly isn't as bad as you make out. Your argument seems to be that a good Championship player, playing in a poor premiership side is to blame for the poor premiership side not playing better? I've never been Surman's biggest fan, but he'd definately improve the depth of the squad. I don't for a second think he'll be an 'ace'. Oh, and nobody is calling you a mong. As for Wotton, why was a 3 year deal not a good idea? He's already played over 40 times in a Saints shirt, signed on a free, and while far from talented, works hard and gets a few tackles in. He's only got a year left on his contract, won't be on high wages, and still provides useful backup. There are many signings that can be criticised (Pulis, Forecast, Molyneux etc), but Wotton has IMO definately proved to be value for money.

Just because he has had a Premier payday, why would he demand high wages? If he wants to return to Southampton, then we should definately consider making him an offer. He knows our wage structure, and would be expecting a similar wage to Adam (if he was on more than Adam there would be trouble). I don't think Surman is an amazing player, but he would have a roll in our squad, and has a lot to offer. If he were signed, he might not be first choice, but he'd certainly be close, and putting pressure on the first team. As long as we don't pay a large fee, or wages more than Lallana's, there would definately be a place for Surman back at St Mary's.

That depends how whether income exceeds outgoings. If we continue without cutting anything then you are correct. However, I don't recall any of the three parties arguing that we should put our fingers in our ears an defy the need for cuts.

I don't know how the CIA calculates the figures, but can't see them including pension liabilities for some countries, but not for others. Somebody is going to have to shatter a few of the public sector retirement dreams. It won't be pretty to watch, but will be essential. Will it even be legal? Anyhow, Social Services has the biggest budget of any government office (at c. £120 billion pa, it is bigger than the NHS and MOD combined... as such, the axe should fall hardest upon welfare and pensions).

I'm not sure there are any countries without a debt... I wish I knew how that works... Even China owes 18.2% annual GDP...

Looks like he's started a new(ish) blog: http://javierigeno.blogspot.com/

Based on the 2009 CIA 'World Factbook', debt as percentage of GDP Spain 50% Italy 115.20% France 79.70% Ireland 63.70% Greece 108.10% UK 68.50% * * Meaning that all of the following countries have a larger percentage debt vs GDP than the UK (based on the latest data): Canada, Portugal, Germany, Hungary, Israel, France, Iceland, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Singapore, Japan

Yess

Hense my use of the word 'most'. It is a split issue, because some liberals value freedom of the human activity over an animal's right not to be tortured to death. Most liberals don't. I didn't realise that the purpose of a horse race was to torture and kill horses. Or is the intention of fox hunting to have a race (and not to kill and torture)?