Minty

Awford is like a mini Harry Redknapp. Nothing is his fault, everything can be solved by bringing in new players. Perhaps time to look at your own (in)ability Andy? Maybe they're playing ****e because you can't coach or motivate them? After all, Aldershot didn't win because they had better players, but because they're a better team. Just the same as the mighty Saints are 2nd in the Premier League, not because we have better players than Liverpool and Man City and Man Utd, but because so far this season, we're a better team. Much like Richie Barker though, I hope he stays and takes Pompey to where they belong.

Interesting project and some interesting discussion here, I like it.

Why take this angle? You took issue with my reply to SOG and felt it was naive, but instead of discussing it, you prefer to mock it in this post above? There are clearly a range of different views on here and I'm more than happy to consider those which differ to mine as I've shown. So why take that approach?

Fair comments there. I certainly agree about the line about 'chocolate making war ok'. But the wider point about the need for charities in the first place was my main chord of agreement.

Many of these things, from Geldof 'outing' Adele, to talk of individuals being 'shamed' for making a choice to support certain charities etc, all come down to one person passing judgement on another. We have no right to judge anyone other than ourselves, because other people do not live with my morals, and I do not live with theirs. By all means, try to explain to me why your morals are different, and allow me to make a choice to change my morals, but do not force me to live by yours if I do not yet understand them or agree with them. Oh, and pap is spot on.

This is SaintsWeb. It's never that simple.

That piece by Shaughan Dolan is excellent and touches on something which I wasn't going to raise here originally... The fact we need any charity to help support anything or anyone in need is a pretty sad indictment of where the priorities of government, 'big business' and many people lay.

Given the criticism it has received, has the Royal British Legion responsed at all? Surely, given the respect that most people have for them and what they do, and the fact that this advert was produced in co-operation with them, it would be sensible to hear their side of the story?

And yes, that is a fair point.

Thanks for the sarcastic reply. Can I just clarify that I meant the raising of money for charity and good causes, not necessarily the use of specific events in this way. I think this one is ok - I will admit I was a bit uncomfortable about it at first, but do feel the underlying message is about overcoming adversity to recognise our common human existence. But on the wider point, I wish more companies would do more to support charities and other causes - that's mainly what I meant.

I think the ad is pretty good in terms of its concept and message - I'm sure most people would agree with that, and it's only the fact that 'Sainsburys' flashes up at the end that is causing the issue. Fair enough perhaps. However, consider this: MOST charity events that take place in the world today have significant, if not total corporate sponsorship. Companies enhancing their brand by paying money to have their logo associated with an event, or who promote a specific product for a portion of sales or profits go to a charity or organisation. Just like Sainsburys are doing here. This one gets more publicity because its a christmas tv ad, and apparently christmas tv ads are more newsworthy than all others, thanks to the likes of Coca Cola and John Lewis... Perhaps another reason some people are not happy about it is because this is the exception, not the rule. If companies did more work to support charities and good causes, then maybe the response would be 'Ah, here is Sainsburys next charity support, good for them'. If more companies did this kind of thing, it would be a really positive move. I'm no fan of the corporate machine, or of gaining traction out of other events, but then again I wish there was MORE of this kind of thing.

Perhaps more important is asking how many of us on here are members of YouGov? Probably not many, and it's based on YouGov members so not that representative...

- More goals scored - Less goals conceded - More chances created, more dynamic football - Relative to our expectations at the start of the season, we're doing far better than we had hoped, whereas last season we expected the team to improve under Pochettino - Other big clubs are dropping points/playing sh!te, opening the league up somewhat

Agreed - I am a party member and don't agree with all the policies myself. However the shared core belief is there that we need to invest more in sustainable energy and do whatever we can to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, as quickly and as safely as possible.

I'm not going to debate the specifics of it because I clearly don't have as much knowledge as you about the industry in general and respect the fact that you *might* be correct. I would briefly counter however with the fact that the Green Party are thorough in their research and have significant technological experts on their side, so I would be amazed if they came up with a policy that was 'thoroughly impractical'. However what I would say is more important is that this apparently black and white approach is more detrimental than any *current* technological shortfall. My previous sentence remains crucial IMO:

And indeed they go on to say: Ensure secure, reliable and resilient energy supply Policy EN310 A Green government will ensure demand management and load balancing capacity: security of energy supply will be achieved as power generation changes to UK-based renewables. We will ensure that the transmission and distribution of energy keeps pace with the change to renewable energy production, as well as the restructuring of supply resulting from policies in EN 410 et seq. below, and as the increasing amount of decentralisation due to local and microgeneration impacts on the system. We will ensure the changing requirements for demand management and load balancing are accommodated and reliable energy supply guaranteed. EN311 Local system operators will be given the responsibility for managing local storage and incentivising provision of local demand management techniques to manage the fluctuations in supply and demand of energy in their areas. We will support the installation of genuinely smart meters in all buildings linked to smart appliances (such as smart fridges and air conditioning) that will automatically respond to fluctuations in supply and demand to minimise energy use and align periods of heavy usage with times of low cost, according to user preference. EN312 We will ensure the development of energy storage capacity through investment in development and deployment of the energy storage capacity needed to balance daily and seasonal demand fluctuations. EN313 We will consider electricity and heat storage in a separate subsidy or investment category from generation, transmission, distribution and supply in order to ensure rapid deployment and will adapt market mechanisms to ensure storage at the distribution level is valued both for its role in network reinforcement and in electricity trading. EN320 A green government will develop power interconnectors with European partners and will invest in the electricity interconnectors needed to provide international flows of renewable power for balancing fluctuating energy demand, in cooperation with countries such as Iceland (with substantial geothermal power resources), Norway (with considerable pumped storage capacity and hydropower supply) and Ireland (with substantial wind power potential)

They don't say they would phase it out before replacement sources are in place - they simply say they would gradually phase it out, which is sensible IMO. They have very pragmatic solutions and policies for the advancement of renewable technology and research - which for me, is the very essence of 'progress' in this particular area - if just a fraction more money went into renewables research rather than continuing to look for fossil fuel reserves, I believe a lot of progress would be made. If you think someone is 'anti-progress' then that would suggest you simply have a different idea of what 'progress' is... I'm not saying you/they are right or wrong, but progress is a relative concept. [Edit - tims quoting of their policies helps...]

I was interested in Batman's personal opinion of the pecking order, as he mentioned it, but it's probably the same. Anyway, it nicely illustrates my point that in some peoples opinion, money = seniority, but not in mine, and not in many others'. And importantly, none of us know what motivates Paul Mitchell, so Batman's assertion is just speculation.

Could you let the rest of us know what the pecking order is, and what the criteria are that clubs are judged on please? Every individual has different priorities - for some it's the money, for others it might be promotion, for some it might be location, and for many it'll be the combination of all these and more besides. Trying to pin Mitchells departure on any one thing, especially something so arbitrary as 'the football pecking order' is pointless, and your speculation only reflects your personal view. I can see why you might think it, but we just don't know. Personally I'm not worried at all. Spurs are trying to buy and poach success, but like any company, until the people at the top change the culture of the whole place, then they won't get far. As we heard recently, Markus brought (not bought) a whole philosophy and culture to the club which has gradually been embedded within everything that happens. That takes time, and can't just be replicated. Just as our team on the pitch is far greater than the sum of its parts, it's the same behind the scenes it seems. Mitchell did a great job, we should be very grateful, but this gives others an opportunity to bring something new and move us on. Levy needs to change himself before he changes anything else for Spurs to improve.

48-49 please

Generally speaking you may be right, but I have. And I am currently working my notice to leave my current job to take work that pays less, because I'm not happy in what I do and want to do work that I enjoy and that I feel I'm contributing something by doing rather than just being a pawn in someone elses machine. I don't know Mitchell, but I do know that the grass is often not greener, even if more money is on offer.

I'm sure lots of clubs want lots of our staff or resources. Doesn't mean they can have them.

Look how long it has taken Clyne to get in the squad... as others say, if he maintains his form, he'll be picked, just not yet.

TBH, I'd probably pick Charlie Austin over Lambert just now. He's playing, he's scoring (in a relatively poor side) and is clearly a good player in his own right.

That was, in hindsight, one of the best football quotes ever. Of course, we await to see how the season pans out but there can be no doubt that have not given up any ambition, we've just found a different way to try and achieve it (and exploit you along the way).