nrogers

Basildon Bond, so slick, prevents smudges and everything

A young English WW1 Volunteer turns up in the trenches, and reports to his CO.

Officer "So young man I hear you Volunteered for war, what on earthed possessed you to do so, although very admirable, it very strange considering you were at Cambridge"

Private "Well Sir, I really wanted to see how a war was fought, so badly"

Officer " Well son, you've come to the right place!"

Brooke Bond, surely

Show me MON promising anything Nick. Just to help people making their mind up.

You just need to google Martin O'Neill promises and view the results

as for Petrov depending on the poster is 6.5 - 8.5 million. AIRI

They can also be divided into correct (£6.5m) and incorrect (£8.5m).

Well no, not really, not a fact!

Young was 9.6 mill, Davis (Allegdedly) is 10mill (even if it's a done deal, which remains to be seen). NRC yep 8.5mill, how much was Petrov this week? Not a dig at you TV, more a point of Transfer fees change as what point people are trying to prove?

Your right Young was £9.6m but with add ons, some of which will have already kicked in with his England appearance. The total fee will/could rise to £11m and is very likely to do so. Davies I believe was £8m but none of us know for sure as it was undisclosed thus the fluctuations on here. As for Petrov that is rather more simple, that was £6.5m I thought that was pretty much universally accepted to be honest.

The problem is these days transfer fee's is that they aren't simple as so many aren't disclosed and there are so many add ons.

I don't remember ANY add on for Young, and I thought it was universally accepted that Davies was 10 mill... as for Petrov depending on the poster is 6.5 - 8.5 million. AIRI

Well here you go on Young for a start.

Scroll down a bit

From the BBC yep add-ons but from 8million to 9.65.

I believe if the manager want's a specific player the Owner will back him to the hilt!

Well it seems, thus far 6 people! About a 1/4 of the people voting, so it's either MON's fault or Randy's, and I know who I trust completely as he hasn't let us down, not once!

Young was 9.6 mill, Davis (Allegdedly) is 10mill (even if it's a done deal, which remains to be seen). NRC yep 8.5mill, how much was Petrov this week? Not a dig at you TV, more a point of Transfer fees change as what point people are trying to prove?

Your right Young was £9.6m but with add ons, some of which will have already kicked in with his England appearance. The total fee will/could rise to £11m and is very likely to do so. Davies I believe was £8m but none of us know for sure as it was undisclosed thus the fluctuations on here. As for Petrov that is rather more simple, that was £6.5m I thought that was pretty much universally accepted to be honest.

The problem is these days transfer fee's is that they aren't simple as so many aren't disclosed and there are so many add ons.

I don't remember ANY add on for Young, and I thought it was universally accepted that Davies was 10 mill... as for Petrov depending on the poster is 6.5 - 8.5 million. AIRI

I actually cannot believe ANYONE is questioning Randy's commitment to the club, he has promised a huge amount off the field and delivered on time everytime, he admit he has nothing to do with transfers and MON has his backing, what's not to believe? Very strange indeed that loyalty to MON outweighs a man word that has NEVER let us down?

Young was 9.6 mill, Davis (Allegdedly) is 10mill (even if it's a done deal, which remains to be seen). NRC yep 8.5mill, how much was Petrov this week? Not a dig at you TV, more a point of Transfer fees change as what point people are trying to prove?

Fair enough, so why can't you make up your mind? It's easy Randy has promised and delivered, MON has promised and hasn't... Q.E.D.

But then you say you can't see why MON would sit on a pot of gold, negating the fact you believe, you either do or you don't Trent!

How so? What has Randy done to make you not believe him? Not one promise has he failed on!

Absolutely, the problem is MON not being able/capable of finding or convincing the players to join Aston Villa!

He is excellent at making a silk purse out of a sows ear though, so what the hell do I know?

And a sows ear out of an alledged silk purse, ala Petrov, Carsen.

I don't see it as unbelievable, people have opinions, and some don't see what he has added, that someone else couldn't have, I voted Yes by the way, but I am far from convinced!

Yes, on the prefix he sorts a whole lot of things out!

Tax for public services should be the same across the board

Tax should reflect an individuals ability to pay it.

Are you suggesting the Departure Tax, VAT, Petrol, Road and Beer tax should be means tested?

got to got to got to got to be thatcher!!! when will that evil old witch hurry up and die so the country can have one long piss up!!

Yes, yes, I remember the millions and millions of innocent lives she took, by murder, torture and the like!

I mean Stalin was a pussycat by comparison!

Tax for public services should be the same across the board, it's the same bloody service whether you are in Little Aston or Erdington. It doesn't cost more to pick up rubbish in Little Aston, in fact it would cost less as there are less houses! So by definition alone they are paying more...

But isn't a tax on the number of individuals fairer, a house containing more people will use more public services such as Rubbish Collection, etc... Do the people in more expensive properties throw out more rubbish?

Quite possibly.

They might well have higher salaries and might have more disposable income with which to purchase more goods with more excessive packaging and thus create more waste. :winkold:

Rich people don't tend to waste things, that's why they are rich... Well off people will be taxed higher at the income level, why should have have to pay higher taxes again for the same public services?

The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was fair.

From Wiki - feel free to look elsewhere if you like.

"The system was unpopular. It seemed to shift the tax burden from rich to poor, as it was based on the number of people living in a house rather than its estimated price. Many tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predictions, leading to resentment even among people who had supported it. The tax in different boroughs differed dramatically because local taxes paid by businesses varied and grants by central government to local authorities sometimes varied capriciously."

Clicky

But isn't a tax on the number of individuals fairer, a house containing more people will use more public services such as Rubbish Collection, etc... Do the people in more expensive properties throw out more rubbish?

She was an enthusiastic supporter of Apartheid....

The Falkland War was a calamity....

As was the Poll Tax....

Lets looks at these complete fabrications of truth.... and then consider reality!!

Margret Thatcher was no more a racist than you or I

The Falklands was about protecting British citizens, no matter what the conspitorial, Thatcher haters tell you, and the poll tax, well I'd rather that, than stealth taxes!!

Not to mention, the comparison of the slaughter of millions of innocent people and comparing it with a tax the Students and crusty, hippy types objected to, because they would have to fund there own way... not to mention council tax is reletively the same thing, but the deluded think it's OK because Liebour introduced it... people seem to forget Callaghan for some reason..

Were you even post pubesant when she was in power?

I'm completely calm; I just can't believe I have contributed to a completely juvenile poll including one of the worlds greatest PM’s with the likes of Pinochet and Stalin... complete farce!!