Frank's cousin

Your subtlty is not lost on me Sir... I understand the weakness that can surface when tempted by such frank disclosure. But standing firm in the face of tempation is what marks us as men, surely? I must admit, I am not sure which I am willing to assess more eagerly, Chapter 5 or more details of Sue's exotic encounter?

But Sir, I was not in anyway attempting to imply that you were anything less than a man of high moral fibre - indeed I could see you as a Mr Ingles type, a Prarie house, or even a Sunday School Teacher - and not someone easily swayed by the hint of laced stocking, or Sue's erotic tales, so was surprized that you seemed somewhat 'distracted' by her risque tale and adventurousness?

Well I seee you as a man in control... and able to assess the potentially quite innocent evening of 'tasting' as various corks were popped into a proper context, and not vere off into a worls of smut and innuendo? Or am I being naive?

Only in your head... but forget it - its gone on too long and there is simply no point in any of it if its just to esure you can get in your daily dose of **** take badly disguised as opinion...

You see Fry, my gripe was not that your opinion was without logic, merit or common sense - but the way in which you were so dismissive of discussing 'hyperthetical' alternatives that might be workable...

Although they said they would not publish due to this, we would surely hear whether their report was considered enough to pass on to the CPS... anyone know when they are due to conclude their report?

Steady on Bletchy, I detect that you are finding Sue' revelations of her evening with the American and the Barman fuelled by Barollo/chianti (depending on the quality of Sue's cellar ) erotic and mildly stimulating?

... it wont be long before players demand their own sponsors on their shirts ... could have some fun in linking appropriate sponsors...

But I think you have hit the nail squarely in your own post. As you say no one should be above criticism, nor should anyone not be entitled to express whatever opinion they form... just that maybe opinion should be informed on knowledge, rather than rumour and hints? Cortese is never going to everyones's cup of tea, nor will he get everything right - and what is one fans 'slight arrogance' is anothers 'focus'. The problem, I and some others have is that just as that too often the 'complaints, rumour and hints, eminate from the same posters - and naturaly we read into that what we will. I recall when there was so much anti-Lowe (and you can say his name, its not like he's Voldemort or something..) stuff on here, one of the biggest arguments I heard was that all his personality traits and feck ups would be forgiven as a bit eccentric, if ONLY he managed to ensure he brought success on the pitch and showed some ambition that demonstrated committment - yet now we have that, often the same folk (and I have been stuck on here for long enough to notice) have switched their attention to the lesser 'issues'.... If he gets that right, what then? We already see posts about his personality based on assumptions... I dont know the bloke, he could be a right **** or a the nicest bloke when away form football and the job he is responsible for, I dont know, and to be honest dont care. He is responsible first an foremost for ensuring the financial stabilty of the club and hopefully with that providing financial investment necessary to progress the club - If he does that, then the rest, well I'll be more forgiving about parking or ticket tax etc. Others feel differntly - so it seems - and if those who have an issue are geneuinely upset by some fan experience, then fair play to them for voicing their opinion - I am sure they back it up with appropriately worded correspondence to the club to see if something can be done about it.... but far to many just seem happy to jump on the bandwagon and put twopenneth of whinge in that adds nothing new and leads to the obvious 'speculation' of some other agenda... Peace and harmony was never going to last, and the it would not surprise me that if we now strugggle a bit on the pitch, the voices of discontent become more persistent - at a time when we should be getting behind the players, management and club as things are now more difficult... thats the way of fans I guess.

Sorry for going down a different route - the John Peel thing I guess started that... but it does now seem that this is seriously much bigger and larger than airst feared... as some one above states, just how they got away with it, how it was covered up etc seems sickening, but we should again probably wait until the investigations are complete before drawing too many conclusions?

At the risk of going off on a tangent - cultural and evoltionary perspectives do play a part in all this. First up, there is NO defence for anyone who seeks out and pursues underage girls, nor is ignorance an excuse in the eyes of the law. Men are naturally biologically evolved to have sex and reproduce with as many women as possible - I could bore you all with the anisogmay concept, but basicallly we are designed to reproduce, and are only limited by the number of women we can impregnate...women have the same desire to reproduce, but are limited by the number of children they can give birth to in a fertile lifetime. This difference led to the evolution of secondary sexual characterists... physical, behavioral and emotional - as females had to be more 'choosy' and make sure that their investment in carrying a child would be rewarded and the father would stick around long ennough for the offspring to survive.... all interesting stuff... but the up shot is, from a biological perspective we are 'programmed' to be attracted to the most fertile women and women are at their most fertile between 15 and 25 depending on nutrition and their growth rates etc.... Its why many men dont find 'older women' attractive.... However, set against this is the emotional reward we seek - a by product of the fact it takes so long for our children to be able to look after themselves - so we have formed relationships with strong bonds that are designed to stop us 'straying' especially as we get older and stick around, - also when grand kids come along because they are also part of our family and contain our genes so its worth helping look after them as well to ensure they grow up strong and can pass on our genetic material to the next generation etc. Finally you have cultural and legal influences - these are the bits that seem to change and perhaps cause the most difficulty. Even up to Victorian times, it was common for men to marry later after 'sowing the wild oats' - maybe at 30 or so, to younger women often still teenagers. Go back to Georgian times and a women still unmarried at 19 was starting to worry of being left on the shelf... Rock stars with groupies in the 70s - a hedonsitic time in which many did things they probably went on to regret and feel ashamed of in later life. How many 20 somethings in a band touring and having the adulation that comes with that, would be turning down 'women' in post gig parties? I am not saying its right to abuse the 'power' of fame to get laid, but in these situations the only crime is if they were underage. The BBC thing seems to highlight 2 or 3 seperate crimes - 1) the abuse of power to grope, and influence women into not complaining or partake in sexual activity against their free will. 2) the abuse of power and influence to prevent those victims form being taken seriously or stopped them reporting it in the first place and 3) the alleged targeting of girls that were obviously girls and not women. All of the above are sickening behaviour for which there is no excuse So why do more men not still fancy teenagers (16-19) - I would argue they do - probably most from a visual perspective, but tastes mature, we realise we have nothing in common with them and we are boring farts anyway so hardly ever likely to be an issue - unless you are a rock star or 'celebrity'.... rich... etc. For most of us the peopel we meet and spend time with with be in our generation so our emotional bonds will mostly form with people our owwn age, who we can talk to share experiences with etc. We are simply never in a position where the majority of our company is 15-20 year old, women. Teachers do, and its why we hear these stories. I would hazzard a guess that for very one we hear about becaus ethey run off together, there are 20 in which the teacher does what is MORALLY and LEGALLY right and avoids or deals with such a situation, even where he may be attracted to someone who is 16-17 - especially if they are only 22-24 themselves they still have enough in common so you can see why it happens, but you hope they have the strength of character morally and ethically to whats right.

Feck me, what you going to be like after 3 fricken volumes? Hang in there bro - this is necessary research and we is waiting for Chapter with bated breath - and Tokyo's with tissues

You are correct in the eyes of the law, but you have to admit that there are young women who are 18/19 who look and behave like they are still 14/15 - and that there are 14/15 year olds taht look and behave like they are 19/20. Whilst under the law you are classified as a pervert irrespective of the physical and mental maturity of the person if stil 15 and 364 days, yet are not if they are 16 and are still looking like and behaving like children. Yes the law Needs a cut off, but in the way we perceive behaviour and assign 'labels'' to people, can we say its right to label someone a perv, if who they fancy looks 20, behaves like a 20 year old, and yet is 15... and they did not ask? Irrespective of age, the issue at the BBC seems to be about power and influence which as stated before is very wrong regardless of the age of the victim.

I think the duckhunter answers well above - the problem I have is these days (and as the law has to have a cut off point rightly so) folk are immediately 'perverted' if the object of their desire is 15, even if they dont know and she looks 20 - yet How many of those doing the accusing in that situation, also seem to 'prefer' their women to follow the current 'fashion' to be shaved to resemble children? Which is freakily odd in the first place.

He's not saying that at all... we have to remember something here, as unpaletable as it may sound, other countries have and have had different laws over time - even here go back a couple of 100 yeras and 13 was fine... nw thankfully they are still considered children and rightly protected by the law. But before we condemn the entire BBC as perverts, lets get at least one thing staright - there is a difference between a groupie a who at 15 is 'mature' physically and thinks she is mature enough emotionally to throw herself at some rock star - who does not ask her age, and the wierd unexplainable types that prey on small and young children - yet they are the same thing in the eyes of the law. There are 15 year olds out in clubs on saturday nights in every town in the country who would pass for 20, and is everyone who has ever not asked for proof of age a perve who should be on the SOR? The problem with the Saville and BBC story is more that power was alledgedly used to influence women into doing things against their will... and that is something else again as its not restricted by age. If said accused KNEW the girls were underage then they are guilty as they had the responsibilty to walk away form those situations, but we do need to be honest that someone who looks at a women who looks like she is 20 and finds her attractive is not suddenly a pervert because she is only 15... even if the law says they are... you walk away when you know and if sensible in this day and age you try find out, but this is not fancying kids it fancying women..

POL skate 5 shows promise

Agree it can give that impresssion, but think we need to be careful here. One would hope that there no bandwagon jumpers who see 'compensation', but only genuine victims who finally have an opportunity to find some sort of justice - if there is a case to answer. As to why no one said anything at the time... the culture then was one of these sorts of things being 'acceptable' - albeit hushed up and swept under teh carpet, and women had litttle chance of being taken seriously or if theyr were, they were encouraged to drop it or else find a lower glass ceiling to nay future within such organizations - that was not just the BBC but any large corp.

I agree about the fact he has as yet not been found guilty of anything - and the Saints experience with dave Jones should tell us that its not always a clear cut as it first seems.... although in this case the evidence does seem to be pretty damning However Alps re the multiple victims coming forward thing - have to disagree - that is quite normal - I guess in many cases like this its quite normal for victims to keep this hidden - in denial as they try and go on with tehir lives often shattered by such abuses... and only when one or two have teh courage later in life do others draw strnegth from that and also make the decision to come forward - not sure what the official psychological explantion/conditions, but suspect there is one.

Biggest difference though in numbers who hold UEFA B, A and pro licences - as well as 10s of 1000s more qualified grass roots coaches...

We need to keep him going - else he might lose the will to live having to read that stuff - hang in there Bearsy 'you 'is' doings mankinds favours' with this quality research - brilliant stuff:toppa:

...Uhm not sure if this will work... How did the Germans turn things around in 8 years? NOt be spending 140 mil on a national centre of excellence - They engaged with all clubs including the top sides - helps that many of the clubs like Bayern have ex German internationals as presidents who still have a great affinity for the national side - They set about having a nationally wide coaching system and set exactly to change the style of play to a more exciting attacking style - so the clubs were tasked with coaching those skills from U8 upwards and a style that would mean when they came together, everyone would slot right in. I dont think their currents ide will win anything, but if you ook at what they have in the wings, with Goetze, Draxler (19) Reus (already breaking through) etc, they have some solid continuity. Our problem is not so much the need for a centre of excellence, but of better collaboration between prem clubs and the FA and a decsion to find a style that is coached nationally from grass routes through the leagues - which just does not seem to be our way. The prem is only interested in its own brand, nt teh national side, and teh clubs play their own style, not some predetermined national thing.... and then you have a system/media/manager that tends to pic teh 'best' players and try and play a style in which they can all fit in irrespective of whether that is natural to their game or not.... and we wonder why some often struggle to get up for it or have teh right attitude when playing for their country rather than club... So not sure its the answer to be honest - but if they can decide what they want to play, coach large numbers of new coaches to a higher standard who then transfer that style to all levels, provided it eventually gets into the prem, then who knows, but whilst the prem is just full of self interest, not sure it will make much difference.

PES - read my post again with respect to competitive advantage - even you must see a lsight difference between your clubs and our clubs situations, the cause, the activty to retain control of teh situtaion and how it was put right.... Secondly, if a club takes a 'RISK' on an asset, the first thig any sensible business does is ensure that the VALUE of said asset is worth waht is being paid for it and also so that should the worst happen, teh asset can be sold easily to cover any resulting shortfall in future revenue streams - this is in not in borrowing to get players, the risk is in not being able to pay it back - which you cant do if you buy old players on long contracts or fail to invest in youth that has potential to increase in value - as others have said - teh risk is manageable whilst teh sum of any borrowings is well within the total value of the club and its assets - which given our squad and infrastructure is not in any doubt.... your clubs model, was spend big on players with no real sell on value and with no infrastructure in place to make it easy either - money ****sed upi teh wall for teh sake of a trophy.... slight difference when it comes to being 'worried' about the approaches....

One disadvantage over the old system where seats were allocated by the TO, is that we are left with more 'single' seats which are often then more difficult to sell, some folk wanting to take kids and family etc will wait till another game when tehy can get seats together?

...remmeber thsoe playground bully's giving kids dead legs with their knees... oh what fun it was...

Yep - as stated we were doing what we could to reduce spending and the overdraft - but going by my definition, that it becomes cheating when you cant pay back what is required, we have to say we were in that boat whether our fault or not - its was not our fault that Barclays changed the game plan, but we must acknowledge that we could not pay back what we owed when asked to do so - as its states on any OD facilty, the bank reserve the right to call it in at anytime - unlike a contractual loan we had with Aviva - who were happy whilst we kept paying the installments which we did til the end....