stevegrant

For which the government (whether it be under a Labour or Conservative leadership) is well known for it's "efficient" use of funds...

Fail. (link doesn't work)

159/3, Sehwag out for 91 to an apparently abysmal LBW decision. Oh well

He got a 3-match ban for punching Robin van Persie in the stomach which was missed by the referee but needless to say picked up by every conceivable camera angle in the ground. Predictably enough, everyone was treated to the usual "he's not that sort of player" rhetoric from his manager. "Chris is a great leader, a great skipper and a first-class lad too. We know it and they know it at Barnsley" were Kevin Blackwell's exact words. Classy, I'm sure you'll agree. Here's what Martin Samuel had to say on it a week or so ago. While a lot of the stuff he writes is toe-curling (his unhealthy obsession of everything connected with Frank Lampard as one example), he's absolutely spot on here.

Chris Morgan of Sheffield United elbowed Iain Hume of Barnsley in the head, who was stretchered off with a fractured skull. He now has a scar about an inch thick and ten inches long across one side of his head as a result of emergency surgery performed on the injury. Unfortunately, the referee (Andy D'Urso) showed Morgan a yellow card for the offence at the time, and because of this, the FA have hidden behind the "can't upgrade a yellow card unless there is conclusive proof that there was intent to harm the opponent" excuse. However, it holds very little water with me (and most observers, by the look of various forums where it's been discussed), and the reason for that is this: quite often, elbows to the head occur when a player is jumping for the ball, so it's claimed that the elbow just happens to be there for leverage, as the arms naturally wave about all over the place when you jump. Fair enough, in my opinion. However, on this occasion, you can clearly see from the replay that Morgan's feet are planted firmly on the ground, so there is absolutely no reason for his elbow to be where it is - and particularly to make contact with Hume's head with that amount of force - unless there is clear intent. What makes it worse is that Hume allegedly had been pointing out to Andy D'Urso throughout the game that Morgan was constantly elbowing him and asked him to look out for it. Hunt wasn't booked for the incident (here's the match report), and the FA didn't take any further action because there was absolutely no way anybody could prove that it was intentional. His defence would clearly be that the ball was there to be won and momentum carried his knee through accidentally. Dermot Gallagher only gave Thatcher a yellow card at the time, which is why it's been used as a comparison with the Morgan incident, because the FA used the "conclusive proof that he intended to harm the opponent" rule to override their "can't upgrade a yellow card" policy.

Clearly the better side in the first half, clearly knackered in the second half. Let's make it clear though, Plymouth are no mugs, they've got a very good away record (15 points from 10 games) and when they've got Paul Gallagher in the side they look a very decent side. If we'd taken one of the chances that came our way in the first half, I think the sheer adrenaline would have carried us through for a win, but the longer we went without scoring the greater the frustration and that saps energy from the best of them.

Hardly surprising. I think this was initially mooted by Platini a few weeks ago because it's basically the only conceivable way under EU law that English football could be placed under restrictions that would prevent it being such a dominant force. Needless to say, it won't ever happen.

Which is exactly right. They provide sufficient carriages, within reason and allowing for platform sizes etc, to take as many people as possible on the busiest routes. If a train has 12 coaches but is still packed, there's not an awful lot they can do about it.

Who'd have thought it, the FA in "spineless ******s" shocker. They were happy to ignore their own rules when Ben Thatcher nearly cut Pedro Mendes in two a couple of years back, but presumably because this one happened in the Championship which doesn't generate anywhere near as much revenue for the FA, they've hidden behind their "once the referee has dealt with it (so long as it's not a straight red card, as those could affect John Terry), we can't intervene" rule.

The train gives excellent value for money, IMO, as long as you make the same journey every bloody day. My monthly season ticket to work in London is just under £400, which works out at about £18 return per day (the daily peak return price is just under £60). Clearly that'll be going up fairly soon, but even so, I know that every time I get on the train at Southampton Central, I'm guaranteed a seat and I don't have to worry about traffic, concentrating for 2 hours on the roads and of course the exhorbitant cost of petrol. The train works out at about 11p per mile to Waterloo. Driving my car would cost about £25-30 for the same journey.

No grey clouds over Wandsworth Common today :cool: It depends on the job status. As a permanent employee, you are only entitled to claim expenses for business mileage, which is basically any miles travelled in addition to the daily commute. As a contractor, as you technically work for yourself, your home address is your place of work and you travel to client sites for your work. Expenses for those journeys can be claimed. I would presume that MPs are classed as permanent employees, but I can't be sure of that.

But presumably the consequences of the first option could also be dire and long-lasting as the nation as a whole and people individually get into even worse debt because of this attempt to artificially stimulate the economy.

Failing to buy a ticket in advance and then not going to the game worked quite well for everyone on Saturday. I suggest you do that again

These two events are not necessarily linked. Two years ago, when Lowe left the first time, everyone shouted from the rooftops saying "the thousands staying away will return when Lowe leaves - we'll all be down St Mary's buying season tickets". The next season, despite making the play-offs, our average attendance was LOWER. Who's to say it would be any different at all this time around?

I think "unqualified" simply means that they have not felt the need to "qualify" their report with any additional information or opinion. I seem to remember it was the same situation last year.

I totally agree that the club could/should be looking at other potential revenue streams (perhaps they are already? I've no idea), but on the flipside, I'm sure many would argue that we've tried that already in the past with not a great deal of success or positive feedback. I remember many people complaining that money (relatively small sums compared to our income at the time) was being invested in non-footballing projects aimed at providing alternative revenue streams rather than being pumped into the playing squad, despite those amounts not really being enough to improve the team. Swings, roundabouts, etc.

Where does it state that they're unaudited? All I've found is: which suggests they have been audited.

The PLC status is entirely irrelevant here. We have debts (to Norwich Union, Barclays Bank and a number of partial payments on transfer fees to other clubs) which have to be serviced, regardless of whether we're a PLC or not. In times like the present, where expenditure is almost outweighing income by 2:1, selling players is the only realistic option. (Note: a takeover in the current financial climate and with the club's debts is not a realistic option) In an ideal world, we'd be able to sell the bigger earners like Rasiak, Saganowski, John, etc which would put us in a stronger position to keep hold of the more promising youngsters. Unfortunately, no clubs appear to be interested in actually buying those players. Saganowski has made a career out of performing well at clubs to begin with and then tailing off pretty dramatically, so any club who had done their research would only want him for a year or so. John and Rasiak are proven goalscorers, but most Championship clubs would understandably baulk at paying their wages for more than a year. Clubs who are looking at our players are far more likely to be looking at the younger players as they will be perceived as providing better value. While they might be a bit more expensive in terms of transfer fees, they won't command overinflated salaries and they'll probably have a good sell-on value in a few years' time as well.

I'm nothing to do with the Trust, and haven't been for the best part of a year. The results were submitted late on Friday afternoon (after the LSE had closed for the weekend, I believe), so the first possible release time was first thing this morning, which was when it was published. The LSE don't hold back reports once they've been submitted, they get published as soon as they can. The loan note holder is Norwich Union, the mortgage lender.

I posted on Friday afternoon that the results had been signed off by the auditors and were likely to be released this morning. Last time I checked, Friday came before Saturday, and therefore before the Reading game.

I've always wondered about Harris' continued involvement in the search for football investment. Surely there's a massive conflict of interests as he's now publicly looking for buyers for Newcastle, Everton and Pompey. If he only finds one potential buyer, who does he recommend they go to? The one who pays him the biggest commission?

£95m debts :shock:

I'm led to believe they were signed off on a going concern basis, which is something of a relief, I guess.

For information, the annual accounts were signed off by the auditors today. They should be filed at Companies House either over the weekend or early next week.

To be fair, he is employed by Channel 9, so it's not all that surprising! Nicholas was excellent when he was presenting the England test matches on 4, but he's still not a patch on Gower.