ChezGiven

So it ignores current debt, just accounts for direct expenditure and revenues? What about asset amortisation etc?

Yeah, am happy with that.

I thought that this directive was only made possible after special pleading to allow football to be considered seperately under EU law because of 'specificities in the market'? I believe Platini has laid the groundwork already to pass this through UEFA in line with the commissions rules on freedom of capital etc. Its fucking huge this if its gone through (the OP suggests its not 100%).

'Threatens'? Am surprised there is not more debate around this since it means that club's outside the top 4 with large loyal folowings are going to be better positioned to compete for players. This ruling will mean massive expenditure for those clubs with benefactors between now and 2012/13 to bolster their commercial and footballing positions before it becomes law. By that i mean you cant compete in a UEFA competition unless you comply.

I sometimes do it because ....

To be fair Rents, the Poland thing is very interesting, you cant blame someone from questioning the authenticity of the threat. I certainly cant blame anyone for being suspicious of a media driven panic with the bonfires of hysteria being fanned by zealous pharma executives at Roche/GSK/Sanof (perhaps only opportunistically), the WHO, government health ministers compelled to 'act decisively' in lieu of looking weak and without leadership etc etc etc Again, i go back to what we mean by conspiracy. Does it have to be a pre-mitigated plan starting from scratch that gathers the world's media conglomerates, governments, corporations together to hatch out a devious plan to exercise control through fear and make some millions? Or can it be the opportunistic vested interest working behind the scenes to take advantage of a situation part engineered, part by chance? Since the latter is what lobbyists are paid to do, as i say, conspiracy is everywhere.

To be fair only the reply was pasted here so I don't think we know what the matter was really about anyway. But again, what are you suggesting? A member of the Met office lied to a member of the public? The Met office are part of a wider conspiracy? Personally I'd sooner trust a second hand opinion from a meteorology expert than some loon on the internet who believes cancer is a vitamin deficiency. They can't even get the weather right. Science is all about managing uncertainty Parky my dear, and this is especially true of chaotic systems (like weather and the stock market). Problem with the Met office is that people don't handle uncertainty well, and they are pressurised into making categorical claims when they are not really certain. Anyway, I read this article and thought of you. Interesting article though, seriously, tell me what you think when you have a moment. New Scientist. As much as i agree with all that at the general level, true science can only deny and not affirm anything. The author is a bit confused though as affirming a relationship between autism and vaccines isnt denying anything. Its the proper scientific process of proposing alternative hypotheses for testing. 'Scepticism' which may be a better way of describing people who dont believe in following the guidance or governments of healthcare systems is right and Proper and enshrined in Popper. Disagreeing with the prevailing scientific view is healthy, it generates hypotheses that can be falsified.

The Drums- Forever and ever amen (Saint Etienne mix). That Lets Go Surfing from earlier in the year is hilarious. Tracey Thorn - Why does the wind? (Andre Lodemann mix) Kelis - Acapella Rocha - Feel the love (Greg Wilson version)

This is the best summary of the situation i've come across so far.

All 3. Typical of the demographic on here tbh.

http://www.evolutionfestival.co.uk/ Emerging Evolution on Saturday night looks lush. 25 bands across 6 venues in the Ouseburn as warm up for the main events on Sunday and Monday. Great to see the event going from strength to strength and promoting local talent. Anyone going or too old / gay / stoned for that malarkey?

I've always stood by the view that the conspiracists come from a sensible position of 'not everything in life is quite what it seems'. I refer to the bigger more important ones like; Zionism in the early 20th century, Christianity throughout the ages, the cold war, the assasination of JFK etc. Arguably, the latest re-transfers of wealth from the middle class to the rich was fairly well orchestrated by the ruling classes. Thats a conspiracy in my eyes. If the cold war is revealed as a concerted ideologoical war against communism, it doesnt mean it becomes honest or not a conspiracy or that all such plans and ideas are known to us. As Rumsfeld said there are things you dont know you dont know. Conspiracy for me is having a government who doesnt tell the truth, who spins the facts, whose objectives are opaque. Or any globally powerful organisation with limited accountability and hidden objectives.

I was with my richest friend on monday (has his own chemical distribution company). All we talked about was the imminent collapse and how to buy long-term assets. We have 2 years left. The deficit hawks will squeeze us into a double-dip recession and the system will fail. I'm stealing a boat and heading north, which will be like heading south once the magnetic polarity is reversed.

Smashed your screen? There's a twat for that. Aye, me.

Smashed the screen of my iphone yesterday, about the 5th time i've dropped it including on concrete stairs but yesterday it hit the kitchen tiles, totally fucked. Called a bloke who advertised on tinterweb, he was at the house in under 30 minutes and replaced it 15 minutes later. I paid 90 euros, i couldnt be arsed to shop around nor send it off to Apple or go to the Apple store so was thinking i probably paid over the odds. Anyone know what Apple charge for 3gs screen replacement?

I think the anti-conspiracists are as blinkered as the conspiracists are circumspective. Global catastrophes, no matter how improbable, will tend to focus the minds of the Hegemons.

I reckon Erik Meijer shmokes a lot of weed. Still an interesting phenomenemonenom though.

I'll be spending most of the summer in Hossegor in Les Landes (Aquitaine), about 50km north of Spanish border.

Same here and a bit worried about topping up at weekends once the nipper is born. Am guessing the report bread referred to observational data, don't have it to hand. However, despite the intuitive confounding, there is also a lot of intuitive sense to a relationship between sleeping well and overall health.

But would have been awake the same amount of time? I hadn't thought of that If you are awake a LOT more but only die a little bit younger, did you have a better life?

A lot of new evidence suggests people who sleep less than 6 hours a night are more likely to die younger.

Good work Cid and many congratulations.

The Godfather of Scientific enquiry said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program”. That explains why evolution is still debated amongst scientists. He also said that science never proves anything, it can only falsify theories and produce new ones.

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall. The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom. Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

Do all these losses include amortisation? I thought i read in the accounts that we wrote off 19m last year for amortisation, so a loss of 30m is in fact really a 11m loss. The only figure that is important for me is the budget deficit. NUFC, like the economy has been running a deficit, otherwise we wouldnt be in debt, obviously. Just like the economy, the total debt isnt that important, its the deficit. The deficit or budget that i want to know is for 2008/9 and 2009/10; what were the total direct expenditures of the club? What were the total direct revenues? The accounts take account of the debt and capital depreciation and all that bollocks, Ashley's 'loans' in turn, take account of all of this, not just the revenue - cost discrepancy. The extent to which NUFC is a going concern (just like the economy for bond traders) is based on its direct revenues and costs. (Edit - and i guess the total debt position but this is irrelevant for us as there is no interest on it). Have we spent more on players and running the club than revenue received this last season? I imagine there were some losses the season before but to make a real 30m loss, we earned 80m and spent 110m? I'm clearly not an accountant.