Dr Gloom

Clegg knew about the comment, that bit of pantomime was rehersed as was nearly the whole Press Conferance with pre-identifyied journalist only allowed to ask questions. Aye, it was truely side-splitting stuff. the stufff about them both getting up to take 3am calls and doing joint press conferences was funny. they both looked genuinely uncomfortable and not sure what to say. it was funny how the coaltion was spun as some kind of grand plan. i enjoyed the after you claude moment when they entered no 10 after the joint photo shoot but it struck me that cameron didn't really try to show thorugh body language that he was in charge.

tbf, it looks like the tories have won the argument on the timing of the cuts and trident. annoying as the lib dems policy on nuclear weapons was the main reason i voted for them.

enjoying all the bro-mance in this morning's papers. according to the mail, cameron and clegg exchanged "meaningful glances" at their garden "love-in". the sun meanwhile notes the pair's "desire to work hand-in-glove". "just one corridor" will separate their offices. aw shucks. anyoen notice how the press conferece was set up just like a wedding yesterday?

....is the point i was labouring to make

unlucky fulham for falling at the last. better side won though. hodgson dignified in defeat.

hodgson for england

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ? smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start so its with hindsight then ? We could have overruled the manager though ....... money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded. and if your signings are a success ? fred was havign a punt though wasn't he? not quite at risdale levels but not far off. i agree most owners need to gamble to achieve success in football unless you have a multi-billionaire bankrolling it, but it should be a more calculated risk perhaps than the one fred was taking. It's got nowt to do with Fat Fred, or anybody. I'm not mentioning him at all or anybody else, so why are you doing it? The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't. This is just hindsight you are using here. Supporting your manager to the tune of the 3rd biggest club in the country and behaving like it is what you should be wanting. well yes, you can only tell the true value of a player at the end of his contract when you can look at his return vs what he cost. ... and i'd agree it's worth getting into some debt to chase some success - football ownership is all about gambling and i'd rather our owner took some punts and gave our manager some money to invest....unlike the current situation. but debt has to be manageable. assuming an arab billionaire with an open cheque book doesn't buy the club any time soon, i would like to see us operate from a position somewhere inbetween our current owner and our previous owner. we've gone from extreme to another - reckless investment to zero investment.

ashley probably hoping they put some good performances in while they're in the shop window

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ? smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start so its with hindsight then ? We could have overruled the manager though ....... money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded. and if your signings are a success ? fred was havign a punt though wasn't he? not quite at risdale levels but not far off. i agree most owners need to gamble to achieve success in football unless you have a multi-billionaire bankrolling it, but it should be a more calculated risk perhaps than the one fred was taking.

Clearly, aye. But you mentioned carrying on the way we were could have led to financial meltdown or whatever which seems to imply things have gotten better rather than worse. i hoped that the implication was some kind of balance between fat fred and ashley. in other words, spending some money (unlike mike), but not stupid money you don't have a'la fred. i certainly wouldn't say things are better now than under fat fred. for all of shepherd's faults, he did have some ambition. there seems to be none of that now we're back in the top flight if the latest statement out of the club is to be believed. looking at the debt levels at the club, i'm not convinced we wouldn't have turned into pompey if we had carried on spending the stupid money on wages and fees that we were under fat fred without champions league income.

clearly there has to be a balance between chasing the dream and making sure the club can survive if things go tits up.

The Guardian? :bulsh:

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ? smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start so its with hindsight then ? We could have overruled the manager though ....... money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded. We imploded anyway. i meant financially, a la pompey or leeds

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ? smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start so its with hindsight then ? We could have overruled the manager though ....... money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded.

sorry all. i'm posting in too many blogs inbetween here to spell check. should have learned how to touch type.

Is that from The Guardian? no, it's from me No shit? Should've said Grauniad. i see what you mean. typo tastic

To be fair though (which I dont like being) The libdems and the cons did agree that cuts were the way to tackle the deficit not tax rises. The disagreement was more the timetable, and I can see how the piigs in Euroland may have concentrated their thinking. Thats the end of my impatiality - I feel dirty all three parties agreed cuts were inevitable - labotu too. the only difference being the tories wanted to start straight away while the libdems and labour wanted to secure the recovery before starting to make cuts. interestign to note that the economy (the big issue fought in the election campaign) is the one where clegg made compromises instead of things like electoral reform and fuixed terms. cameron appears to have made more concessions but on the big issue thaat really matters, he got his way.

Is that from The Guardian? no, it's from me

an alliance of the losers would never have worked. i've got to say though, my initial disgust at the lib dems for getting into bed with the tories has eased somewhat because it could change the tories for the better. still can't believe ham face cameron is our new pm mind.

when you look at how far apart the tory and libdem ideologies are on things like europe, immigration and nuclear weapons, you have to question howr how this alliance will ever work. will the tory backbenchers atdn for all the concessions the tory negiotiaters made to secure the allaince? the new chief whip is going to have his work cut out. but this could be remembered for being the moment when british politics changed and the end of the genuine right wing in as a mainstream political force. unless labour retreat to the left in opposition, which could be dangerous for their chances of winning the next election, we're potentially going to end up with three parties jostling for position in the centre ground with no real opposition other than a few lunatic fringe parties.

not spending silly money is wise not spending any money is scary

couldn't have happened to a nice bloke.

were you guys watching the presser? it really was extraordinary stuff - man-love in full bloom in the PM's back garden. there was a deliciously awkward moment when cameron was asked about a gag he cracked about clegg being his favourite joke

that was one bizarrre press conference. it was set up like a wedding, a total love in. almost as if this coalition had been part of some grand plan....a 5 year plan i wonder. The Telegraph’s James Kirkup tweets: “Oh god. The country is now being run by two characters from a Richard Curtis film.“