Ken Tone

The captain has already changed his story (twice I think), and is now publicly admitting he went off his offical course (to 'salute' the ship's ex-captain who live on the island) and now admits he left it too late to return to his orignal course and so went into shallow water. The irony is that the ex-captain is quoted in some reports as saying he never really rated the bloke when he was his second-in-command. Meanwhile the BBC and others are running stories about crimes, including rape and even murder, on board cruise ships and the difficulty for the victims and their relatives in getting anyone to take any notice, with the cruise companies mainly being interested in hushing things u,p and the authorities not being sure which country's police are responsible for any investigation. I reckon if you have any shares in cruise companies, now might be a good time to get rid!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16631651 For alleged sex assault.

Listened to Solent this morning. In short they know absolutely nothing, and AA would not answer their calls yesterday afternoon and evening. They even resorted to re-playing the interview with Colin Farmery (who seems to be one of the few decent blue few) from the night before. He is just a fan, who presumably gets most of his info from the media, such as Solent! It's now somehting like 14 days since AA said new owner in 7-10 days ,or even 48 hours, and also that money was needed in time to pay January wages. Does anyone know if the rumour about Chainrai lending even more is true? If so, was that to cover wages this month? Because the wage bill payment seems to me to be the big crunch time. If they can't pay, the FL will have to take action surely? I'm surprised the yhaven't so far. Compared with what they did to Bournemouth and even more so to Luton, they seem to be being surprisingly tolerant towards Pompey.

Well if the reports are true that we've offered £24k a week immediately rising to £36k if promoted, and if one of the more civilised Celtic fans that has posted recently is right in saying they don't pay anyone much more than £15k a week, then Hooper will want to come here. The question then would be more whether Celtic will take a reasonable fee, or just tough it out, since he is on contract and they are not skint.

Wouldn't set the pulse racing if we signed him, but he'd be good squad member. Experienced target man and striker, but not a profilic scorer. Weird that QPR signed him then left him out of their official squad. Of course he'd probably look a world-beater in Scottish football

Yes, and I agree about agents, but it doesn't sound as if Celtic pay anyone the sort of wages we do our top players. They may be a massive club, with big crowds, but in a tinpot league, so their income still won't be vast in comparison with English league clubs' TV money. (They appear to be living within their means... a novel concept in football.) So if you were the Celtic board (as opposed to still-novice manager Lennon) would you rather pay Hooper more than your wage cap, and then have half the rest of your team demanding similar rises, or make the best of it and take £6 milion for him and buy another striker on smaller wages?

I believe every word Mr Cala says! I was especially impressed by "The losses are credits to be used against future profits". Seriously, what is going on here? There can't be any moral, sensible, motive to take this bloke seriously, surely? Would it be possible for a new owner to use a 'shell' company to borrow yet more money to pay Chanrai back his loan, then leave the new company to default on that new loan?

AA, undertaking a thorough search for a Pompey buyer ? Probably just a cold-calling automated dialler malfunctioning.

Bloody filter. The word was s n i g g e r s !

Is it just me that s******s every time I see the words 'trust' and 'Pompey' in the same sentence?

I am just gobsmacked that this bloke really might end up as their new owner. Thought he was just a sad Walter Mitty type like those idiots at Pinnacle that nearly screwed up our move out of admin, and that it must be someone else that AA was referring to, but apparently not. Surely even AA can't have the brass nerve to pretend he is a serious buyer? It was 7 days he lasted at that Italian club before they threw him out because he paid none of the money he promised, wasn't it?

Some might be, but others .....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16576067 4 grown men beating up a 16 year old lad on a train

Jesus! This thread is like being transported back to the 50's in a time machine. My wife is a Saints ST holder like me, has been attending football matches regularly since she was a girl, for over 40 years, and is more keen to watch any random game that just happens to be on TV than I am.

We got rid of Dyer because he's a little ****, not because he wasn't a good player. Even against Arsenal, when yes he played really well, did you see the replay of the penalty decision? Dyer stamps on Arsenal player's shin, over-balances in the process and goes down .. penalty given , when it could have resulted in the arsenal player being seriously injured. The foul should have been given against Dyer and arguably he should have been sent off. I don't expect Saints to be saints as such(!), but I would rather have players in our team who I can cheer for without too many reservations. On the other hand, I'd take Surman back any day. He only left to stop us going broke.

Was thinking about that. The only reason I can think of is the 'good money after bad' syndrome. He would prefer some idiot to buy the club as that would give him more chance of getting his money back (now owed to him by CSI or PFC?) If the clubruns out of money in the meantime he will have much less chance of a sale. So he's lending, and no doubt secured as tightly as he can get it, the extra £1mill in an attempt to improve his chances of getting back his £17? £18? million. The really inexpicable thing was is why did he get involved in the first place? I've heard people say his feud with Gaydamak may explain that, but it makes to sense to me.

Anyone else wondering if Lee (and Hooiveld) may actually be it for now? Up front, when Lambert is available we'll have one 'first on the team sheet' striker and Lee, Guly, Connolly (and maybe Barnard?) fighting for the place alongside him. Midfield is pretty solid with chaplow still to retun one day. Defence -- loads of full backs and 3 CBs fit most of the time. I'd love to see a 'marquee' signing, but would we have signed Lee if we were going for a big name striker as well?

One aspectof this that the SNP seem to gloss over is that the concept of Scotland as a whole nation is itself a bit dubious historically. They talk as if a long-standing united country was subsumed or even subjugated, into the Uk in 1707 (?). Arguably there has never really been such an entity. Although there have been kings of 'scotland' on and off from c1000 AD to 1700 AD, the early ones did not rule anything like as big an area as what we now call Scotland. There were separate independent countries in the Hedbrides and the Orkneys for example. Much of the south-East of scotland was separate until I think the 17th or 18th century For much of its history modern day Scotland was divided in bitter battles between highland and lowland. Even in the battle of Culloden, the 'English' side had many Scots fighting against the Jacobites. Ironically, there is even a view that much of the current scottish nationalistic view developed from the romantic notion of Scotland encouraged by visits from the 'English' royal family in the 19th century -- Queen Victoria also. Will Salmnod offer separate referendums to the Orkneys, to Dumfries & Galloway, to the Hebrides (are there still any 'Lords of the Isles' btw?)

Well I can't speak for Chapel, but my point is/was that an independent Scotland wil not be able to afford to maintain a decent defence force. It's not a matter of who gets what at first, but what you can afford to 'run' long term. How many Scots who are in the Royal Navy etc, do you think will want to move their career into any tiny new Scottish armed forces? Even the UK struggles to keep up with the big boys. Can't see Scotland affording any type 45's. The armed forces of an independent Scotland would be tiny. No future in being in the army or navy there, and as for the cost of an air force... There are only about 5 million people in Scotland remember, as opposed to c 57 million in the rest of the UK. Even dividing up assets as simply in that ratio would show how sillly the idea was. Oh and yes of course the Scots have made a major contribution as members of the UK's armed forces. No one is denying that.

Of course if Scotland were independent, with inadequate independent defence, it would be very vulnerable to being taken over by a larger, more powerful country ..perhaps a neighbour. Oh hang on, that's what happened in 1700 or so. If Scotland was not viable and defensible as an independent country in the 18th century how could it be now, when defence needs rather more equipment and financial clout than it did when all that was needed was a few brave highlanders with blue faces and big swords? (Btw I actually like Scotland and most Scots I've met, and often spend holidays there!)

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that AA wants what is best for portsmouth FC, as opposed to getting a good a deal as he can for AA, whilst keeing BC sweet enough to avoid being removed as administrator.

I think there is something of a backlash growing in England over devolution, let alone independence. I do not know (does anyone?) where the truth lies in the cost argument. ie Would the income from north sea oil outweigh the flow of taxpayers money going north over the border? Is scotland a financial drain or a benefit to the UK? The truth of that is buried beneath political rhetoric. However there is a definite perception, right or wrong, here in England that we are subsidising the scottish life-style. I'm not sure if even Salmond himself really wants independence, as surely anyone with an ounce of sense can see that Scotland is too small to run its own defence and have a completely separate economy etc. The SNP, like UKIP, the Greens, etc, exist largely as one policy, one issue party. Nothing else binds them together as a party. If ever they were to achieve their aim, there'd be nothing left to unite them politically and they'd fall apart over normal everyday policy disagreements. If Scotland were ever to become independent, it would no longer need an SNP. Salmond would no longer need to exist in effect. However there is a danger that the English will lose patience and be pushed into forcing the issue. Cameron's line with the Scots, is really only a variation on the old cliche "Be careful what you ask for, or you might actually get it."

I was gobsmacked to read AA quoted as .......Mr Andronikou said he hoped money from the potential sale of NOS would be pumped into Pompey’s running costs. Surely the administrator for CSI should be hoping for money for CSI's creditors, not for running portsmouth FC? How much more proof do the FL want that the football club is dependent on CSI money to meet its running costs, so that with CSI in admin, the clubis also in admin in effect ?

Reminds me of a Jo Caulfied routine where she talks of how passionately her Scottish husband loves his country and all things Scottish ... but just not enough to actually live there of course. Ditto Sean Japanese-whisky-is-good Connery!

That's correct . 'Ordinarily resident', ie not just owning a holiday home, for at least 3 years beofre going to uni. Worthwhile anyone with teenaged kids living and working in say Berwick or Carlisle thinking very carefully about moving across the border and commuting to work instead.

What is so special about the Titanic that means we should mark it any more than any other tragedy? There have been many tragedies over the years with much more direct links to the people of Southampton than the Titanic. For example in the second world war, Southampton eventually lost 630 civilians dead, 898 seriously injured and nearly a thousand with slight wounds... all actual residents of the city unlike most of those lost on the Titanic. The only thing that makes the Titanic tragedy different to the countless others that will have happened in and around the city in the last 100 years is the hype and 'romance' around the sinking of an 'unsinkable' ship on its maiden voyage, whilst carrying lots of glamorous and very rich people. (A much greater proportion of whom survived, in comparison to the poorer passengers btw). If it weren't for the 2 (3?) films that have been made about it, I suspect most of us wouldn't even been have heard of it. I wonder how many other ships have sunk over the years after leaving Southampton? Why not remember them all too?