Joensuu

Dune, this is incorrect. The BBC are not 'marxist' at all. They are probably the most left-wing channel, but aren't really left of centre, they just appear to be so because of the extreme right-wing stance of most of their competition. In reality, the BBC are very much centralists, they go to great effort to ensure that they don't bias towards either right or left. The opportunity they gave Griffin was similar to the opportunity they gave Bob Crowe, give either extreme airtime, they will make themselves look stupid (I wonder why!).

Disagree with the OP entirely. Quality commerical channels are few and far between. After HBO, I'm stuck to think of any quality in commercial TV. Let's face it, commerical TV channels are great at providing the light entertainment for the masses, but they completely fail to provide high quality in almost any other area of programming. So without the BBC, you can wave goodbye to any form of quality in Science, Education, History, Geography, etc... they'll all be scrapped in favor of 'Celebrity strickly come cash in the attic on ice' or some other such waste of airtime. To me, there is an underlying problem with the BBC. By competing with the commerical channels in the areas where they are good (i.e. light entertainment), the BBC is wasting money in providing a service that others already provide. Instead the BBC should be asked to focus solely on the television that other channels fail to deliver quality programmes in. By this I mean, get the BBC to drop the dramas, and get rid of the high-paid celebs (wage cap of £150k - including the DG!). Then let the commerical channels provide what they want to, and instead get the BBC to focus on the quality documentaries, on Panorama, on Newsnight, on Attenborough and Palin. The simple way to do this - drop the BBC's requirement to need to use 'ratings' to justify itself. Ratings serve only to prove the 'quantity', and not the 'quality' of the programme. As such ratings steer all programmes towards the lowest common denominator... I think most people call it 'dumbing down'.

Smirking's right: http://www.invest-in-southampton.co.uk/news/policeHQ.asp

£5 million extra per season wouldn't make much of a difference, but if the Sky bubble goes bust, and attendance becomes important again, it could make a huge difference...

I've been wondering if it might be possible to get the best of both worlds, i.e find a town centre location which also has good transport links. Stoneham is ideal for transport links, but I agree with those who say that the out of town location would change the atmosphere for the worse. The best compromise location I can find is here: Sure it would cost a bit to buy the land, but it's ideally located for both road and rail access (if you build a footbridge to the station, policing away fans might be much easier). Another downside is that Mountbatten Way is busy at the best of times, but I can't see a better location anywhere in the town centre. Can anyone think of a better location?

There was a (Deloitte?) survey about 8 years ago which ranked us the 14th biggest fanbase of UK clubs (is there anyone who can remember it or can provide me with a link?). We certainly have the fanbase to carry substantially larger attendances. My guess is that demand depends upon the percieved quality of the game. Against lower Prem (say Blackpool) opposition I'd expect us to achieve c. 30k, mid prem (say Fulham) c. 35-40k, upper prem (say Arsenal) c. 45-50k. Obviously it's impossible to judge until you build a stadium big enough to find out.

kayak.com offer a reasonable flight comparision service...

To prospective buyers somewhere far closer to A than B. However, if the owner is rich enough, it doesn't matter, as they won't need to sell unless they receive the price they want to receive - i.e. fully recooping the cost of the stadium.

Ouch... I'd have preferred Vince Cable.. Let's put it this way. Your house is worth £300k. You spend £30k on an extension. If you are rich enough not to need to sell, you can demand that £30k back off any buyer, by only accepting offers over £330k. If in the meantime that £30k extension is increasing the amount you can rent the property for, how can you possibly lose? Answer: You can only lose out if you decide you want (or need) to sell - and accept a lower offer, (which is somewhat negated if you happen to be a billionaire).

I'm happy as SMS too. But why do you assume we would be indebted by building a new stadium. Might not the Leibherr's foot the bill and write it off against the increased value of their asset? Afterall, it's not like they are in favour of loans are they? Again, why do you assume we would foot the bill for the debt? ... and wouldn't a 'free'* larger stadium help offset the premier league 'operating costs'? * Free as is, paid for by the Leibherrs' to increase the value of their asset (just as you or I might build a concervatory to increase the cost of our house).

So, thanks to the Liebherr's we have been able to outspend every other club in division in all of the last three transfer windows, but yet some of our supporters think our owners aren't helping us out enough... To me that sounds like a spoilt fat kid throwing a tantrum because he's only allowed 1 more bag of sweets. There is a very big difference between throwing silly money at a club and sensibly financing a club. Do we honestly need much more money thrown at the first team? Sure if the right player becomes avaliable at the right price, but do we really want to be paying over the odds to attract quality to division 1?

Richardson wasn't out of contract, he was signed for an 'undisclosed fee' - rumoured to be almost half a million. Then add to that the tribunal fee for Dickson... So which club in Division 1 outspent us then?

Where is your evidence that spending has dried up? We outspent every team in our division in the last window. We then sacked a manager, which is never a cheap path to take. Also, what leads you to assume that we won't be owned by the Leibherr's in 5 years time? For them, it's a small amount of cash invested (and growing) in a side project. This side project might even be more significant, if they relate the club to the memory their father. The family might be inclinded to sell, but they certainly won't be in a rush to do so. Only a generous offer (£40m +) would see them part with the club IMO, as anything less just wouldn't make financial sense. So unless someone comes along offering silly money, I can't see the Liebherr's moving on in a hurry.

If, there is going to be a new stadium, why would you need to ask where the money would be coming from? The Liebherrs are known to being averse to debt, and have plenty of spare cash to finance a stadium outright. So I think we can safely rule out a loan, either from a bank or financed by the family themselves. So if redevelopment were to happen, it would be financed entirely by the Liebherr family (not as a loan). It's worth pointing out, that the cost of the stadium would simply be added to the 'value' of the asset - meaning, on the balance sheets, the Leibherr family won't have lost a penny by rebuilding or redeveloping.

Interesting, snippet. IMO good news to give him a break on when there is a low priority game. Not sure why you felt the need to word it so provocatively. Absolutely. Martin has a lot of potential, and Shrewsbury is just the sort of game he should be playing in to gain experience. Sounds fair enough. Let a few of the fringe players gain experience. Sorry Mark (sic), but refering to nicola as 'nicolina' or 'clotese' (as per previous thread), isn't going to sell your view to anyone, it's just going to put people's backs up. It's playground name-calling. Anyhow, this sentence is illogical, there is no evidence that the club are short of a bob or two, they were the highest spenders in the division in the last window, and have a large attendance regularly swelling the coffers. Why would sending a fringe player on loan save much money? Sure I'd understand your point if the top wages start being loaned out... but if this turns out to be a youth player, then I can only assume that you are trying to rake the muck. 'A Connolly issue', now you're sounding like Mystic Meg 'as Saturn enters Gemini, something will happen to a sportsman with a red sash'... So if Connolly is photographed out drunk next week you'll claim to be ITK, wonder if you'll claim the same if Connolly dents his car, or trips over a badger?

True... but what scares me is that in both 83, and 95 the economic low-point had been reached, and jobs and growth were begining to bolster public opinion... As there don't appear to be many signs of recovery yet, if Obama doesn't turn things about rapidly, he will be entering the begining of electioneering with large numbers out of work... IMO, unless the economy picks up soon, the TEA party extremists might be the only way for Obama to win a second term (if this were to happen it might end up being a bit like Le Pen, with centralists (of both left and right) voting for the only moderate choice to prevent the extreme right from gaining power).

Well, after the recent clarification from the admins, you would have to assume so, unless of course you made it clear that this is a reference to a comedy sketch, taken from the 11 O'Clock show c. 1998/9.

A statement to unite the left and extreme right. Only the moderate right might beg to differ...

The forum linked in the OP reminds me of just how annoying a certain former poster could be.

Is Brass Eye actually racist though? Surely the butt of the specific joke isn't targetting any racial group, it's the 'middle class' that's being humoured. Even if it were racist (which I believe it isn't), does this mean that Brass Eye's 'racism' is acceptable in the Muppet Show, but not in the Lounge, and if so why? Hypo and I rarely see eye to eye on here... but one this occasion he does seem to have been unfairly penalised.

Why do sad? This is a good news story. Thank goodness Delaware didn't vote for such an embarrasing former-witch, who really hasn't got a clue about the basics of the US Constitution: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe

The Hattie Jacques bit, or the 'less stable, less educated, less middle class' bit? Either way, a Brass Eye quote should not be infractable.

Are you suggesting the Admins are all users? Otherwise, yes, people are perfectly capable or moderating their use of the less addictive drugs, such as Ecstasy, LSD, Cannabis etc, although some do struggle somewhat with more addictive drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Any other drug? How about Amphetamine, Cannabis, Ecstasy, MTA, or LSD? All of which are far less addictive than alcohol (which is itself far less addictive than tobacco). LSD, Cannablis and Ecstasy, have also been shown to do less physical harm than either Alcohol or Tobacco.

Cocaine is legally produced in both Peru and Bolivia. Opium is legally produced (for medicinal use) in Turkey, and India.