Kingsland Codger

I took my 'O' levels in 1972 and also took a GCSE in 1995. The GCSE was in a Modern Language and back in 72 I took an 'O' level in a couple of Modern Languages. The exam I took in 1995 had three papers; listening comprehension, translating from the language into English and translating from English into the language along with composing a story in the language. The early questions in the GCSE were far too easy and should never have been included (such as how do you say 'Hello', that kind of very simple stuff) but as the paper progressed it became more tricky and by the end of the paper I felt stretched and my abilities challenged. Back in 1972, the entire exam tested my abilities to the fullest, right from the start. The early questions in the GCSE should have been at the same level as those at the end. So, yes, the GCSE was easier but in its defence I would say that eventually it became quite demanding. I understand the reason for the 'grading' of the questions was to allow those who were only ever going to get a low grade to sit the exam answer what they could and finish whenever it became tricky. But what sort of nonsense is that? A language is very unforgiving. You study it at school/college and then visit the country and you either sink or swim. Why settle for (even encourage) mediocrity?

That certainly seems to be a discernable trend - all the more reason, therefore, to ensure when you take a free-kick you keep it low and DON'T balloon it into Row Z. Given Lampard's awful attempt, the obvious conclusion one can draw is that he hasn't been practicing. Had he been doing so, he would have been only too aware of the ball's tendency to fly high.

I'd like to add Frank Lampard's dreadful free-kick to that list of shame.

Some poor results yesterday but the best game of the lot was Scotland defeating Argentina in a cracking game. I recorded it (Sky channel 990) and watched it after the England World Cup match and have to say the rugby was far more thrilling than the football.

The UK is no longer in recession. The figures for the first quarter of this year showed positive growth.

I doubt the sense and accuracy of some of the questions. The first is a 'true or false' and asks ... 'In the 1980s, the largest immigrant groups were from the West Indies, Ireland, India and Pakistan.' This confused me as they need to define the word 'immigrant' - does this refer to ethnicity or nationality? One can be a British citizen but of, say, Irish origin many generations back. And where would someone who is the child of, say, a UK resident of Indian origin and a UK resident of West Indian origin stand? To which 'group' (their word, not mine) would he/she belong? The third questions asks for the number of parliamentary constituencies and gives multiple choice options ... 464, 564, 646 or 664. Yet in the recent election there were 650 seats. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ Question 4 asks another 'true or false' with both statements beginning 'Education in state schools in the UK is free ...' this is complete myth. Education isn't free at state schools at all as we all pay for it from the (very large) tax bills - either as income tax or VAT or any other kind of tax. The money comes from somewhere ... us all. I didn't bother going any further.

The above crystalizes things rather well. Perhaps Gary Richardson on BBC FiveLive might consider taking this up with AA. GR interviewed AA back at the end of February and now, 3 months later, it might be time for a follow-up.

When a club has been relegated from the PL to the CCC but then bounces straight back up to the PL, the parachute payments go to the FL rather than the club as the club is no longer in the FL. Were Portsmouth to be kicked out of the FL then what would happen to the parachute payments? Presumably they (the parachute payments) would remain within the FL and be divided up amongst the clubs as they have been in the past (Birmingham) and will be soon (Newcastle). A powerful incentive for the clubs within the FL to vote Portsmouth out.

When Mr Grant starts bleating on (and on and on and on) about how hard done by are PFC, it is beholden on the interviewer to remind him of the facts. Can you imagine a politician making a statement of his views to a professional political interviewer (Paxman? Marr? Humphries?) and not getting informed questions back? Yet football interviewers never seem to bother to say something along the lines of ... 'Hang on a second, Avram, you got in some loan players in January who have to be paid a wage, yet you owed HMRC, St Johns Ambulance, Cancer Charities (name your creditors here ... ) substantial sums. What on earth makes you think you should remain in the FA Cup? At least Colleymore is making all the right noises, shame he isn't asking questions to Mr Grant directly.

I find it healthy we find the time to celebrate the life of England's favourite Turk.

Promoted by Easter, preferably as Champions; and since Easter is a bit late next year (April 24) this is achievable. Whilst this might be a tough target, I have no doubt that we can do it. This season (2009/10) has been quite remarkable, AP has achieved an amazing turnaround and I am fully confident of his and the teams ability to deliver.

Dead right. There is no meaner an enemy than someone who knows they owe you a favour.

Is this more money for the relegated clubs or is it the same amount of money but paid out over 4 years rather than 2?

Sparticus?

A reminder of what Lord Mawhinney said 50 weeks ago when we were docked points. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11700_5228800,00.html Apart from the nonsense about an appeal mechanism being available to us (i.e. dare to appeal against us and things will be even worse), the rest of what he said could easily apply now to that lot 17 miles to the East. Consistency is all we seek.

If we take the number of Saints fans at Wembley on Sunday as 51,000, then I suspect this was the largest number of fans of any UK club away from their home venue in the modern era. I doubt if it will be surpassed any time soon.

I also admire the way he never gives up on an apparent lost cause. The number of throw-ins and corners he has won us through chasing a ball that has been going nowhere but, due to his industry, forces a defender into a pressurised - and therefore weak - clearance, must rank in the dozens.

An intriguing thread, this. I've been of the view that a Mexican Wave, whether at a football, rugby or cricket match, is a clear sign the fans are bored stiff and have no interest in what is happening on the field of play. Yet reading so many comments in favour of it is making me think again. The key question has yet to be asked ... Why 'Mexican'?

There were around 60 or so Saints fans on the 7:45am ferry from Ryde. The connecting train left Portsmouth Harbour and a few minutes up the line about half-a-dozen Saints fans in stripes joined at Portsmouth & Southsea. Full marks to them and full marks plus double bonus points go to the three Saints shirted fans who got on the train at Fratton. More and more joined as the train neared London with a large number getting on at Guildford. Waterloo station was awash with red and white and also the police – was it really necessary to have quite so many? Tube to the pubs at Baker Street where the open-top buses gave the tourists a great view not only of Sherlock Holmes but of thousands of Saints fans. The new stadium is a vast improvement on the old dump, large open areas around the arena and equally spacious inside but the sound system was shocking; could not make out any of the announcements at all. The game itself was a bit strange – we won comfortably enough but never seemed to get anywhere near peak form. A real joy to see all the Saints fans and reading on here there were over 51,000 - then I guess after Manchester United and Arsenal when they play at home this was the third largest ever recent gathering of fans of one club in England – and the largest ever when not at their home ground. Presumably this is a record that might be equalled but unlikely to be surpassed? One thing sticks in the mind about the return journey; looking down from the top of the escalator at Waterloo and seeing just about every passenger below me on the moving staircase in red & white, waving flags and cheering. And a similar scene, if on a smaller scale, at Portsmouth Hrbour on the return journey.

Plenty of pros and cons. The only time I had been to Wembley before was to see Wales play the All Blacks (when Cardiff Arms Park was being morphed into the Millenium Stadium, Wales played their home games at Wembley). Apart from a complete lack of legroom (think Ryan Air economy), on leaving the old stadium streams of fans were merging at right angles to each other and the crush was unbelievable; an accident waiting to happen. 80,000 members of the Sisters of Mercy would have had trouble, let alone 80,000 football fans. So the new Wembley and her immediate outskirts appear safe with crowd control given priority. Inside the ground, lots of legroom and as someone said elsewhere a feeling of being both compact whilst still in a huge arena. From my own seat (Block 124 row 7) the view was great, if a little low down, and from reading the comments from others, the views were excellent from wherever. On the downside, clearly the money wasn't spent on the sound system which was a joke. The bogs could have been better and although I didn't buy anything inside the ground the queues for food & drink appeared to be poorly controlled when compared to the Millenium Stadium. Over the years I've been lucky enough to visit most of the other mega-stadia in/near the UK (Twickenham, Murrayfield, Millenium Stadium, Stade de France, Croke Park, Lord's) and each ground has its good points and bad. For ammenities, ease of access, public transport and general well-being of the paying public, Twickenham is the clear winner with Lord's being chaotic. Croke Park wins for atmosphere with the Welsh place a close second but Twickenham comes nowhere near. On balance I'd say Wembley is all right but appears to represent poor value for money.

In 28 February, whilst being interviewed by Gary Richardson on BBC FiveLive, Mr Andronikou said the debt at Portsmouth was £78 million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r5y9t And now he's saying 'it’s £100m in total, as near as damn it' (see above sportingintelligence.com link) So, presumably, the £22million added on since the club entered administration is now his responsibility? The increase in the debt is close to £1 million a day; who on earth would want to buy into that?

And one from the progressive rock era - Survival by 'Yes' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAymX34mwqU

Usually I'm very sympathetic towards referees. They have an extremely difficult job and the linesmen/referee's assistants often give little support. It is inevitable refs will not spot everything. However, Mr Walton's performance yesterday was, as Chapel End Charlie suggests, so one sided and so bizarre that I, too, began to wonder if I wasn't witnessing something more sinister than simple blistering incompetance. Given that we won the match, I probably wasn't;but the seeds of doubt were certainly there.

I heard Andrew Andronikou being interviewed by Gary Richardson on BBC FiveLive's Sportsweek about 10 days ago. Richardson asked AA if the amount of debt was £70 million and AA replied the amount of debt was around £78 million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r5y9t wjhilst the above link says you cannot listen to the programme again, in a section just below called, somewhat puzzlingly, 'Chapter 1' it says ... "Portsmouth administrator Andrew Andronikou reveals the extent of the club's debt as £78 million and the plan to exit administration before the start of next season". And now it's £83 million - an extra £5 million of debt found/created in just 10 days. Sweet.