Saintandy666

I can not believe (or perhaps I should expect it by now) the open misogyny in this thread. It's clear sexism is everywhere, and that a lot of people just don't get it. Why the hell should women have to go day to day being treatment like an object and subject to different standards? It shouldn't be acceptable or the norm.

It's an economic issue as well. As pointed out, no one can properly live off the minimum wage and the difference has to be made up by in work benefits and health costs when people aren't able to look after themselves as they should be able to. I'm obviously sympathetic in some senses to companies that don't have enough money to pay their workers to live on, but Saints easily do - it's literally pennies to them in the context of their entire wage budget and would make a huge difference to any workers not paid enough to live on.

Ah - fair enough. Pretty damn good chance of all top 7 getting it then! Though I think we have a very good chance of 5th - not so confident about 4th right now as I was a few weeks back.

I think in FA Cup it stills goes to runners up? But if it was say Man U vs. Arsenal then we are good down to 7th I think.

Still think Europa is likely. After today's Chelsea win - does that not mean 6th is now Europa too? (as I think they stopped giving it to the runner up in the league cup?)

I think we will qualify for Europa almost certainly. I think there is a high liklihood of the two cup places going to the league (so down to 7th which'll be fine for us) - and then also perhaps Liverpool and/or tottenham winning the Europa league and not getting top 4 and so another Europa space to the league (as Europa gets champions league place this year)

We go behind after 3 minutes and people are writing off the game already?! Where is your faith. We need to dispose of this losing mentality - that's old saints. New saints win more often than they use, so let's not lose faith.

Well then. A win today we knew was huge, but given these results, possibly even bigger now! Can put 5 points between us and 6th.

I think we can be reasonably confident of a top 7 finish right now. But from 3rd to 7th we shall see - beating Liverpool would be huge. Let's just hope also that Liverpool/Tottenham win Europa and the cups go to Man U for FA Cup or Chelsea for league cup or whatever - will mean even in 7th off to Europe we go.

Would love to see a more up to date version of this, given how much it seems to rise every year. Really interesting how much even league 2 players earn now.

Subway in new york is pretty good too - so being a bit out shouldn't matter too much. It's 24/7 and is $2.50 for every ride no matter what the distance and there are stops everywhere. It's really confusing as a system though. I have great sympathy with this piece! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/23/new-york-subway-homesick-london-underground-mta-map

I mean I think we can characterise students as lazy but friends I know keep up a part time job with a decent amount of work which equals effectively a full time job in hours. At Oxford (where we aren't allowed jobs), the average weekly work time is equal to or more than the average job time. I certainly work more now than I did on my year off when I worked at a shop full time.

In what sense have I spoken about uncapped fees? I categorically stated I would not want that. All I have said is the that current system has not caused the applications shift that was worried about 4-5 years ago. Then I said that it's a progressive and fair system within itself, both for the individual payer and for a society where so many (rightly) go to university - and so some sort of individual top-up contribution is necessary (as it will be either that or via general taxation). So I think I'm talking in a very present sense and making points that are reasonably fair about the system in a present sense? I admitted that there is uncertainty - as with all policy - going forward in the long term and apart from that my only assertive statement on the future is that I personally prefer a full-on graduate tax as an alternative. I know public policy is endlessly complex, and just as you think you have one aspect down, another factor rears its head. I'm just slightly confused at your replies though, as I can't see how they align with my comments!

I was opposed to the fees rise 5 years ago, that's for sure. The evidence of this thread shows that! If fees rises were proposed today, I would still be against them. I don't particularly like fees as a system. I'd rather that we just had a full-on graduate tax. But trying to be pragmatic here, I acknowledge that the fees system has not led to the apocalyptic scenario some (including I expect myself at the time) bought into. In fact, it seems to have had no negative effects on access, and is correlated with a positive trend - though that doesn't necessarily mean it's causal because of access changes at the time of the fees rises. I'm not in favour of uncapped fees - in my 'ideal' world, I'm in favour of no fees, but a graduate tax of which the specifics I suppose we can't get into on a thread on a football forum. So all I've said so far is mainly a reflection on the post-election hysteria, and then a more pragmatic assessment of the system which within itself is progressive and doesn't prevent attendance by anyone who wants to go. Its original problem was a PR one. The long-term impacts of the policy in terms of university finance I admit no-one is quite sure of yet.

By the time I started, I did. At the time of the student protests, I'm not really sure what I thought. There was just a lot of general vague anger. I think I was more worried on the 'slippery slope to privatisation' argument - but I don't see how we can go back to fully state funded when so many (rightly) now go to university.

They can refute all they like, but they are also wrong. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/higher-fees-dont-mean-fewer-working-class-students-look-at-the-uk-for-proof 2014 = record applications, record applications from the most disadvantaged and also record entry from the most disadvantaged. There is obviously still some way to go to make sure that university is an opportunity all have an equal shot at if they wish to, but the idea that this system has led to a vanquishing of the working class is completely incorrect.

And yet, it is not block to their entry as parental income does not affect one iota of the payback process. You pay back when you can afford it at a set rate as has been said a lot on this thread. I'm technically almost £40,000 in debt at the moment, but I'll only pay it back when I can afford it and at a more progressive rate (9% over 21k) than the previous system (9% over 15k). It won't affect my credit rating, and at no point will money be demanded. It's a tax. A tax that seems to be financial necessity if we are to send as many as we do to university at the moment.

Most students do have a part time job to subsidise the insufficient maintenance loan - which is the biggest restrictor to working class university entrance, as parents won't have the funds to make up the difference. Although - on a side note, not everyone can get a job for various reasons - Oxford where I am do not allow it.

It hasn't discouraged applications. Applications are rising, and the number from underprivileged backgrounds has never been higher.

A year before that it was c. 40%, so take these longer term projections with a pinch of salt I reckon! Also, not sure what 'whole means' - there is a whole lot of interest on the loans (RPI + 3% whilst at uni and whilst in employment and paying back. If in employment and not paying back so earning under 21k it's just RPI). So someone could pay back their bit as such, but not pay off the whole thing.

Have emailed again for follow up. Will report back any findings.

In quite the u-turn from my comments 5 years ago (how the time passes) - I think a few things need to be put straight about the fees rise, and the hysteria about what they were or rather what we thought they were. The system that we ended up with is just a progressive graduate tax (9% over 21k for up to 30 years) - and I know the government wishes it had just called it that now. There's nothing paid up front, and nothing demanded that I won't be able to afford once I graduate and enter employment this year. Whether the system is more costly than the older, or about the same or cheaper - we shall see. I've seen different estimates over the past few years and they seem to differ wildly based on the current state of the economy. What I do think is important is that people understand how irresponsible the Labour policy is of capping the fees at £6000. All this does is create a hole in the budget of universities that the government will have to fill going forward. And this is billions upon billions of pounds. And the beneficiaries of it all? Those who are already wealthy and can pay up front, and those who go on from universities to earn top wages and so can easily afford more. It's an incredibly lazy policy that will do great harm in terms of the massive black hole it leaves in higher education finances. As for the outcome of the whole system, I think it's broadly been positive. Certainly, students seem to value their education more and some of the courses which offered less value for money have been weeded out. But more importantly, there are more applications for those of a lower socioeconomic background than ever before and I think that can be linked to the rules on access that universities have to abide by to charge the £9k fees and also the mindset 9k brings about. Going forward, I don't think it's possible to return to the fully state funded situation we had in the past. There's simply too many people going to university for that to be the case, and given that some student contribution; whether it be like the fees system at the moment (all but a graduate tax) or a graduate tax real, it doesn't matter. I don't think we should be concerned about more going to higher education - broadly speaking, we're living and working longer and have a different economy that will need higher levels of skills. But what I really don't like is the idealisation of the academic route, and so we need proper revaluation and promotion of other routes (for example apprenticeships) as just as important and valued. So yes. Summary as such is that the fees system is actually not that bad and Clegg got a pretty good deal for students. The outcome of the system has been broadly positive too, but more needs to be done to rebalance the relative valuation society places on academic and vocational routes. NB: Not completely relevant to this discussion, but the real problem of higher education is not fees, but maintenance which remains inadequate and is in my opinion the largest practical block for opportunity for all with higher education.

I emailed the club about whether they pay the living wage a while back. I got a reply that they would 'pass it on to the management' (i.e ignore the email) Maybe more of us could email en mass? Find out whether we do, and if not start a petition. It's really important people are paid enough to live on and even more so at companies like Southampton who can afford to pay their cleaners £7.85 an hour so they can live with dignity.

If we beat West Ham and Liverpool, that will in some senses put their charges to bed with Liverpool at least 9 points behind us, and West Ham. That will ensure us (minus some major collapse) 6th place and European football, assuming someone in top 5 wins the cups. Next week is so huge.

Didn't see the first half, so didn't see the injury. But if knocked on head and concussed aren't there rules regarding time you have to take off?