St Jim

and you point is?

We did spend 4m on Delap several years ago - makes Sharp look like a bargin

Since 2007, in arguabley his prime playing years (24 - 28 yrs old) with a whopping 27 goals in just 142 he's juts the type of player I believe they should sign for £750,000.

with the main difference that the majority of the British working public actually pays the required tax.....

that is pure gold!!

Ekelund & Pahars

Most of the beers are I think (Fosters and Carlsberg certainly are alhtough I'm not sure I can classify rats p155 as beer), brewed under licence. London Pride or Vale Ale for me

Sure the top teams are a match for any European opposition but I disagree that it is the best in the world. Most exciting - yes, best - no. I also don't think Stoke didn't do the reputation of the PL any good with their inept, route-one, yawnsville display. Looking at the teams in Serie A and La Liga who are not competing for Champions Leauge spots, they will be better than most of the equivilant teams in the Prem.

Not to mention the cherry on top of the nicely iced cake - the Boateng penalty miss in the cup final.

So the end of the season has arrived, income will dry up, Ben-Haim & co will still require wages paid and the Clott will still spout the usual b*****s about how much of a great job they have done, even though with arguably one of the best starting 11's in the Champ they managed to finish closer to the relegation zone than the play-offs. Could be a fun summer - page 1,000 here we come!

I would rather not give any money to them cheating filthy *******s. Let them keep Brown and his wages and hopefully it'll contribute to their eventual demise.

It's not an extra 30 minutes to count all the preferences. In the Australian (states and federal) election, there were numerous examples of it taking nearly a week to count all of the votes (because it was so tight getting a 50% majority they had to count all the preferences). Now that's not just a personnel cost but also a location cost (they will have to pay for the hall or office where the counts are held), and then if there is a need for a recount you are recounting an already long process. All the arguments are now academic anyway - there won't be another referendum on the voting system for a bloody long time.

It will cost more to run. Counting single votes is simple in the FPTP sytem is quick and simple, counting preferential votes will take a lot longer because once you have done the initial count you have to recount the send preferences, third preferences etc until there is a 50% majority. Because of this the counting process alone will cost more.

The Waterside Inn in Bray (the same village as The Fat Duck). Given that it one of 4 restaurants in the UK with 3 micheling stars we had high expectations and it delivered! The chef is Alain Roux (son of Michel Roux from the Roux Brothers). Not bad for a tiny village to be hosting half of the nation's 3 michelin star restaurants. The other exceptional one was the Connaught Hotel when Angela Hartnett was Chef there (although managed to swindle eating free there after my wife's work had her working over a weekend when she was meant to be joining me at a Saints match [i ended up going with the lads and had a much better time than I otherwise might have], so they paid for us for eat at a restaurant of our choice). Finally, recommend the Black Boys Inn in Hurley (near Henley).

To be fair though Wycombe were never at Loakes Park at any time they played in the Football League. Although a s***hole of a ground I can't list this one as it was truly a non-league stadium and served its purpose of one well (and even I loved the slope)!. You paid 1 pound to get in and you could stand anywhere in the ground except the main West Stand. It even offered free entry for hundreds of football fans, you just had to go into the Hospital next door, take the lift up the the 2nd floor or above and head to the West window for the best view of the game. I'm with you on this one!! Worst ground in officially the worst town in Britain

That really depends on the system I guess. Here in Australia you have Full Preferential system for the lower house where you have to rank ALL of the candidates in order of your preferences (hence why most people vote in order of their least disliked or even just preferencing candidates randomly because they can't be bothered). If it is optional preferencial voting then, like you mention if you don't like a candidate then you won't choose them so you are only voting the ones you like. In this situation there is a good chance that any one candidate still doesn't get 50% of the vote then they have to look to each voting card that is not fully preferenced and the candidates with the first preference will dictate the remianing preferences. In essence the cadidate can ultimately decide who gets in, and not the people. This is quite scarey. I'm not saying that, given the UK is a first past the post system, the AV system is worse or less democratic, I just do not believe it is the resolution to the issues people have with the current voting system and from my experience in Australia, it really is not any better and if anything it is more complex for people to understand. This AV system does not win more seats for the smaller parties (the Greens, who typically poll similarly as a percentage ot the Lib Dems have won their first seat in the lower house). The upper house here [Oz] is done based on proportional representaion and I think the Lords should be overhauled to this system. This way the upper house could fully represent the people when voting on bills and legislation. Finally the bigger issue the UK has is turnout. If people don't bother voting then you are never going to have a true representation of the public regardelss of the voting system.

It is undemocratic because you end up with an elected candidate that no one really wanted there in the first place (as in the example I gave). Practice shows that when people cast their vote, the order of their preferences tend to be based on who they don't want rather than who they do want, so the elected candidate is is effectively the least disliked as opposed to the most liked and as such they actually don't represent the people at all.

The AV vote does nothing to make the system more democratic. You can still get majority governments on say, 38% of the primary vote and even get majority governments on less than 50% after preferences (as proved here in South Australia where Labour only obtained 48% and the Liberals 52% after preferences on a 2 party preferred basis, yet Labour still had a majority of seats). One big issue is that the candidate who, say, came third out of six after the primary vote counts can still get in after preferences. That is a candidate getting less than 33% of the primary vote. The example of this was at the Australian General election last August. Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie scored 21% of the primary vote (in third place behind Labour (35%), the Liberals (23%) and just ahead of the Greens (19%)). How is it democratic that a guy who only polled 21% of the primary vote can make it into parliament? If I were back in Old Blighty my vote would be no and I encourage the country not to waste the nations finances changing the current system to one which will provide no greater amount of democracy or proportional representation.

I've never heard the word "academic" ever used in relation to Portsmouth before

how about the one at Epsom?

I don't begrudge them the FA Cup win, afterall it was winning the cup that caused the massive player bonuses that in turn caused thm to make a loss in the cup win that in turn has contributed to their downfall! )

How the f*** to they get away with devising a CVA where they can change the payment dates and installment amounts. How the f*** did this ever get approved............oh yeah I forgot they most of the creditors are from Pompey http://www.untoldentertainment.com/blog/img/2009_03_05/inbred.jpg

Are there any Adelaide based Saints fans?

are they dead yet?

They're 'aving a laugh mush!