Joensuu

You sound politically confused St G. You tell us you are a 'Libertarian', but unless you were answering untruthfully you turned out to be one of the least liberal posters in the political compass survey: Also small correction, we don't for a second believe we can stand in the way of "the Earth's natural Climate Changes", we only seek to minimise the human caused emissions which are tipping the Earth's natural climate over the edge. Not at all. As a liberal I want to see as few individual restrictions as possible. As I said before, the only law I agree with is one which protects somebody or something from the excesses of another. Responding to climate change should largely be a voluntary thing. Unfortunately there is a strong correlation between the most polluting members of society, and those who are least likely to voluntarily reduce their emissions. Hence, the undesirable requirement for legislation. All factored in St George. Science is well aware of natural emissions. It's the human-caused emissions we need to focus on. Never have been, nor never will be a communist. The only reason water would be regulated is if it began running out. Of course not reacting to climate change can only make this occur sooner. If you ever live to see water regulated, I'm sure you'll receive loads of thanks from all of the people you know, 'for being so dim and gullible and standing by and doing nothing' despite all of the evidence, and scientific consensus standing against you. But don't worry, us liberals will see it in our bleeding hearts to forgive you.

Liberty? Isn't that exactly what someone of your political persuassion hates most? Do you not realise your views are far more authoritarian and restrictive than any of the people who you are arguing against?

I fear he might be tempted to cash in when we get there, he could sell the club for £60-80 Million, an pocket a sizable return. We've just got to hope he's caught the saints-bug before then. If he has then the sky's the limit, and I would see no reason why we couldn't consistantly achive finishes in the top 6. If Liebherr loses interest we might find either a complete lack of investment or worse a new owner in the Gaydamak mold... I have faith in Liebherr, I want teams like Spurs to look up to us in envy.

You sure did: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=489189#post489189 I searched the forum for Chainrai, but your post wasn't in the results...

hmm great proof reading... page 15 "The new building will provide vastly improved trianing and medical facilitie for Southampton Football Club."

This makes interesting reading: http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/images/planningimages/129047_1.pdf

Hmm, so Balram Chainrai has now loaned Pompey a second 15million in the space of 3 months. There is something strange about Chainrai's involvement that doesn't quite add up. Chainrai co-founded Ameris Holdings with Levi Kushnir. They then sold a 65% stake of Ameris to none other than Gaydamak snr (you might just remember him! http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1401503,00.html). The next twist came last September when Chainrai and Kushnir successfully sued Gaydamak snr for failing to buy the rest of Ameris as agreed. They won the case and were awarded about £16M damages. http://archive.globes.co.il/searchgl/Court%20orders%20Gaydamak%20to%20pay%20Kushnir,%20Chainrai%20$23m_h_hd_2L34nDZaqDbmnC30mDJ0mC34sBcXqRMm0.html So we now have a situation where the very people loaning the cash to bail out Pompey, are the people who have taken the club's former owner's father through the courts. If you throw in to the mix the rumour that the ground and surrounding land is still owned by Gaydamak Jnr, you start to build up a really complicated picture. Is Pompey actually being used as a pawn in an Israeli business power struggle? Are Chainrai and Kushnir attempting to get a hold on some of the Gaydamak assets they feel they are owed? Whatever is happening, I doubt very much that Chainrai and Kushnir have football at the top of their agenda....

Agree. That would be an ideal set of results. Out of those the ones I really want to win today would be Hartlepool, Yeovil and Orient... The other games would be nice to go our way, but I feel are less important (i.e. any result in the Colchester game is a plus for us (I'd almost rather Colchester won it to push Rovers futher down)) A win today could see us shoot up the table as far as 15th or so. Walsall will be very tough though!

It wasn't warmer. There was greenhouse gas contribution, both natural and human, albeit that human contributions were significant lower than today. There is nothing unusual about modern times being warm also. the variable sun had little impact on the climates of either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Stronger solar activity in the 20th century accounts for little to none of the evinced temperature change since the middle of the 20th century. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

No idea what the Canadian on the video is on about, as I can't do sound here at work - guess it must be something to do with supporting drilling tar oil (based purely on his nationality, and from the fact StG posted it!). (err? No it's not! http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/skeptical) Anyhow I wouldn't give you the credit of describing you as a sceptic*. Being naturally sceptical is a healthy position to adopt, unless of course there isn't any evidence to support your scepticism... then it's not a 'sceptical' position, more one of non-science and lunacy. So just remember folks.... The antonym (sorry StG that means opposite) of evidence is 'contradiction' or 'hearsay' *Sceptic is inaccurate as it suggests your opinion might have a grounding in reality; it doesn't. Denier has far too many negative religious connotations for me. I prefer 'non-science' it's simple and to the point. St G, your view on climate change are complete and utter ‘non-science’.

You only support strikes when its the rich being unfairly treated? Typical tory.... NB - I'd love them to strike (for the same reason as you).

Sadly, Benji, I feel you share the majority view. I respect your opinion, because I have heard similar views expressed by many of my mates. While it's treated by the public in a similar way as Red Nose day or Children in Need, it really shouldn't be. Millions of starving children is absolutely disgraceful, and a damning incitement of capitalism in work. However, millions of starving children won't actually threaten the existence of our species, nor the planet as a whole. Climate change needs to be the top item on every country's political agenda. It will soon be the top item, when its effects become more pronounced, when water, food and fuel shortages force our governments to react, unfortunately by then it will be too late. The order of priority should be: Climate Poverty/Welfare/Health Education ...followed at a significant distance by Law & Order/Military It really angers me when people donate money to animal charities when there are far, FAR, more pressing issues to tackle.

These are the teams we are competing with: Colchester, Huddersfield, Bristol Rovers, Walsall, Millwall, MK Dons, & Swindon Every time one of them fails to win our chances of making the play offs increases. Head-to-heads with these teams should be considered as 6-pointers. Out of the seven teams listed, I think Huddersfield are too strong not to finish 4th or 5th, while I can't see Walsall sustaining their form (they have an appauling Dec/Jan fixture list, which will probably see them drop out of contention). MK Dons are on awful form at the moment, if this is their purple patch then they have a strong shout, but if things don't improve soon I think they will miss out. If we're still in the chase in March, I imagine it will be Colchester, Rovers, Millwall and Swindon we will be hoping slip up.

Every team needs to be approached with respect, but I feel Walsall's form/position in the table currently make them look better than they actually are. Take a look at a selection of their forthcoming games, I can't see them being able to maintain either form or position: Southampton (h) 5th december Millwall (a) 12th december Bristol Rovers (a) 26th december Norwich (h) 28th december Charlton (h) 2nd january Leeds(a) 23rd january Still they could beat us on the day, so as I said, hope the team approach them with respect. Interestingly, this Walsall thread suggests that Hants Police will be in attendance, as we have been taking an element of trouble makers to away games: http://www.upthesaddlers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32691

I think you're right http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12875_4065920,00.html

What, no new climate 'non-science' for us today George? Or have you given up on that now? I'm not even sure what your last post is arguing, are you trying to come on a UK-based website and argue that the UK is a nation of bed wetters? Do you have any stats on nocturnal urination? I'm sure your cranky non-science friends could fabricate some for you (you might want to try these for some bed time reading: http://www.nafc.org/index.php?page=facts-statistics hmm, or even this one, perhaps you should give pi5sing yourself a try, apparently it's good for you: http://www.bottomlinesecrets.com/article.html?article_id=48838) You didn't do a very good job selecting the Rasmussen poll data (48% approval), if you'd bothered having a closer look you would have seen that FOX have come up with some that look even worst for the President (46% approval) http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm#FOX. Hey look I can play the selecting extreme nonsense game too. Next time you want to prove a point, I'd advise you to find the most extreme data you can (second best just isn't good enough), as it's got to be more accurate than all the other ones being suppessed by the global leftist commie socialist conspiracy that exists only in your head. You really are the biggest tool I've ever had the displeasure to commune with.

Hey, I agree with you, the results look superb, and I love reading them. I hope you aren't sulking later and I look forward to the 'Last 13' thread. But surely you know what I mean about rubbing it in, when you re-read http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=17786 ? Not that I disagree with how annoying the 'negatives' can be. I can't believe I'm sticking up for Alpine!

Asked this on the main board, but no response. I seem to remember there was a table of the most supported 20 football teams in the UK, listing the estimated number of supporters for each club. I think it must have been published about 2000/2001, and seem to recall that it might have been part of a Deloitte study into fan bases. I think Saints were in 16th place, but with Rangers and Celtic included in the top 6 or 7 teams. Does anyone remember what the URL was for these stats (or better still know about any more recent equivalent)?

No idea, but the Times guessed 15th, while the Guardian went for 'Play-off potential'.

... but not if we don't win? [bTW, I love looking at the list in the OP, it's superb to see us in such good form, but I can't help but feel that there is an attempt to rub it in the faces of the 'negatives'. If this is just a 'handy form guide' surely a 'last 13 games' thread will be started irrespective of tonight's result?]

Depends whether club 'size' is measured purely by current position/attendance; or whether historical factors, fanbase, potential, and facitilies are factored in. I'd warrent 31st is probably about the right in relation to the strength of our current team...

I know of a couple, but I imagine they are exceptions to the rule! My guess is that for most inhabitants the Star has too many words. There are several reasons for this Guardian poll being a close run thing: Many neutrals consider Grant to be a good manager, just because he was at Chelsea. Many neutrals assume that the club has some money coming in Jan (who knows?) The gap that Pompey need to make up is quite small... half of the teams in the Premiership would go down in a normal season.

I guess, but it depends what you expect the 14th biggest club to achieve. I mean, you might imagine they could possibly win a cup or two, and get to semi/quarter-finals on several occasions, perhaps even get a few seasons when they punch above their weight and finish in the top half of the top division. Our level of success might look a bit slim, but it's probably about right..

I'm sure I saw some stats a few years ago that had us down as the 16th largest support in Britain (so 14th largest support in England & Wales). In terms of what we have achieved in out 124 years, 14th 'biggest' feels about right. Obviously we are not the 14th best team in the country (we'd probably lose to at least 35 teams in the top two divisions), but maybe we are still the 14th biggest (just!). As Ponty points out, we aren't even the 'biggest' club in division one. However, that's only because Leeds are down here with us. I can't remember where Leeds were in the stats, but I think they were about 6-8th biggest. Does anyone remember that table of 'number of supporters'? Think it was published about 2000-2002 ish (I seem to recall it was authored by Deloitte?) Would love to find the link again.

I do wonder whether George actually believes half of what he types. Obama being a commie shows either a massive misunderstanding of what 'communism' is or a massive misunderstanding of the President. Unfortunately, I get the impression that StG isn't alone in his nutty disposition - perhaps logic is outlawed in Louisiana?