Joensuu

I guess if you're into some Beastie Boy thing or perhaps like spending your summer solstice stoned in a henge there's not much wrong with wearing a pendant.

Yup, but it would be unfair to penalise WC twice. Labelling him a spelling nazi is enough for me.

It's a Friday, I typed that from a phone without a spell checker, and with a nasty cpu lag which makes reviewing and editing my post rather time consuming, anyhow isn't there some form of anti-pendant rules on this interweb thing?

DP, I'm sure you will recieve flack for this post, but it sums up my view of the situation entirely. - We are definately owned by rich owners. - The club is definately on a strong financial footing (although as others have pointed out we might well be richer than we realise - but I feel it correct to err on the side of caution). - Are CEO has stated that the club is aiming to break even. Obviously this isn't a fact, but I see no reason to doubt what has been said. - Our income is far in excess of the other clubs in the league (attendence, lack of debt etc). - While we can't be certain that the money is avaliable for a 'marquee' signing, it would be rather strange not to believe that it is. Not only have we been told that we have made 'substantial' bids, we have also seen evidence that we are in the running (c.f. Austin). Finally, unless money is secretly being leached from the club, our known income streams will have generated enough revenue to fund a large purchase in this window, if we decide to. I don't understand how anyone can accuse you of making it up, that is unless they have their own agendas.

It's politics, isn't it. You don't play your economic trump cards (Ken and Vince) too soon, they are perfect to bail you out when some inevitable bad economic news forces you to reshuffle. Gideon Oliver is the perfect fall guy, universally seen as incompetent and slimy, he is in the cabinet simply to give Cameron a get out of jail free card. Unfortunately, modern politics is rarely about doing what's best for the country, more about keeping a grip on the keys to number 10. Putting Ken and Vince in the treasury would be great for the country, but not so good for Cameron.

Are you trying to out-pedant the expert? (As the contract for purchasing London Bridge was signed by Mculloch in London Guildhall, might it be safe to assume that he would have probably ventured the extra 1/2 mile to have a look at what he was about to blow a couple of million dollars on?)

Damn, missed this... not sure if have voted for trousers or johnny bognor.

Are we, err, agreeing?

Ay, you're right there. The BoE seem to be rather reactive rather than proactive. Like a doctor arriving too late, so over prescribing medicine to try to make up for it. Here's a candid snap of the BoE's latest meeting. Wonder how long they will continue ignoring that inflationary chap at the back? FWIW, my guess is they will keep finding reasons to ignore inflation, until either they run out of credible excuses, or when Georgie Gideon Oliver publically blames both the BoE and the 'Labour legacy' for the 'rampant inflation'* *which surely is the starting point for a joke about typical tories, and their inability to keep their rampant inflation to themselves, or something.

Isn't this exactly what the government wanted though? By reducing government spending, they have taken money out of the economy. This reduction in income is rippling through both the public and private sectors as we speak. As other countries begin to leave their own recessions, the prices of imported goods is increasing, and will continue to increase. The net result is that in the UK inflation kicks off, while the government has a good excuse (economic stagnation) to keep interest rates low. The result of which means that anyone with substantial debts (in sterling), gets much of their debt erroded by the difference between the high inflation & low interest rates.

The rise in food prices in recent years is down to a combination of stock market speculation on food, and to a lesser extent the US switching to Biofuel crops - linking food prices with oil prices. The third factor is the rise of a Chinese middle-class, and their growing taste for meat. I'm as pro-environment as they come, and I can se Biofuel for the green wash that it is - it works only on scrub land that is currently unproductive, but doesn't work when arable land is taken out of food production. So if we were more veggie and less Capitalist the world would be a better place.

But why would we need another swimming pool, surely the one between the cinder track and the back of the net at the Chapel end is big enough?

The Ertebølle culture

19. The waterfowl of Rutland

Seen as Rhodesia didnt exist after 1980 technically I'd have to disagree. But I assume you mean, Zimbabwe? If so, then on the narrow assessment criteria you have chosen you'd be correct. It's easy to find examples that 'proove' your opinion. However, a historian should be aware of their own bias, and look for examples that dont fit their interpretation. I remember watching some greek students being challenged to argue why the Parthanon marbles should stay in London. They learn't more from the excercise, as it forced them to think from a different perspective. Let's see if you can do the same, so rather than picking from the select examples which support your view, can you find any examples which contradict your opinion?

There are different schools of thought on the way all socal sciences are interpreted, objective approaches frequently suffer because their lack of interpretation frequently leads to overly simplistic assumptions. Subjective approaches do not attempt to provide a definitive interpretation, but instead look for multiple interpretations of the evidence from different perspectives. As such people being taught a subject in a subjetive way are challenged to look for alternative interpretations from a range of viewpoints. When presented without a range of interpretations (from different perspectives), a list of facts will often lead people into forming a narrow and simplistic understanding, normally heavily biased by their own personal worldview. Hense it would follow thay a typical Express reader might interpret, say, the factual events of Africa under the British Empire and conclude that it was a positive experience for the continent. This of course tells us much about the bias of a typical Express reader, but little about the history of Imperial Africa.

I just hope that the opportunists selling this sort of crap are left with large amounts of unsold stock, and that the club prevents anyone wearing even half a manure logo from entering the home section. You never can be too careful.

Sorry to bring the thread back from the dead... but have I missed something? Has the filter has been (partially) removed? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?27706-St-Marys-Seating-map&p=941227#post941227 Edit: just testing... S****horpe Edit 2: hmmm...

So witholding injury information is interpreted as not having faith in the strength of the team, as opposed to it possibly providing us with another small advantage? Hate to play the player, but isn't it rather strange logic for someone to argue that we definately need to strengthen in one thead, then start a thread arguing that becauise our team are already so strong we shouldn't need to be looking for any further tactical advantages (however small)?

Really? So you value DMG about as highly as Lambert then? Don't forget DMG has scored 4 goals in 38 appearances for Forest.

Another aside, but I think our reputation for developing high quality young players has a massive value. Not only does it mean we are able to continue to attract the very best young players, but we can also command transfer fees beyond similar talent at other clubs... If, say, DMG had been at any other club, would he have fetched the same sort of figure?

Listened to a fair amount of that. Really rather dull, although I'm not sure if that's because it's actually a dull interview, or if I just have little interested in whichever club they are talking about (I've forgotten already).

It's out of date, and Liddle is criticised by both sides of the policial divide... but this still makes for an interesting read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3136505.ece

Sorry this is an aside from the thread... but I can't understand why you can possibly think rail privatisation has been in any way successful. Government spending on trains has gone up (more than tripled in real terms), service punctunality hasn't improved (e.g. Southeastern have just clocked up a lovely 82.04%), and fare prices have shot through the roof (unless you book at midnight on a tuesday months in advance with no comeback if you miss your booked train). The only improvements I can see are flashy new rolling stock which insist upon talking to you, in an annoying, endless, patronising whine, and the long overdue replacement of accident-prone stretches of Victorian tracks which had degraded due to underfunding in the 80's and early 90's. I'm fairly sure that had BR been given half as much money that the incumbents have been given, we'd have seen both the tracks, and the rolling stock upgraded in a similar manner, but without the negative financial impact that both the taxpayer and the ticket purchaser have witnessed in the last 15 years. The only downside I can see is that some shareholders would now be less well off. I'm not against Privatisation. It can work very well in a true market economy. However, privatisation will never work when you grant companies contracts to run a monopoly. This is not a real market, as the government's forced invervention when GNER went bust shows. Were BR still in place instead of the current privatised mess, we would have a better overall service, and be saving enough cash to buy, say, a new aircraft carrier every year.

There also isn't a position (except perhaps in goal) where we don't have 2 excellent options and 2 adequate options. Do you want to bloat the squad?