Happy Face

Oh, and here's where you said Ashley would sell and we could attract better than Kinnear.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry528452 and denied Kinnear would be made permanent because of the sale going through... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry529346 Shall I keep looking?

Aye, you know what you're talking about like.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry507966 I was unaware that Levy had written a clause in his contract based on league position. That was very shrewd and unconventional and allowed for the switch. Of course you could trawl through my post history and pull out the odd thing but generally I am spot on. I thought you asked Tom to trawl through your post history and p[oint out where you've been wrong though. You want it both ways on that now too? Here's where you said Ashley's influence is "bad news" in the past btw.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=473405 Here's where you said Owen was away to Man U in the summer... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry479056 Seems to me that if you're right on occasion, it's simply down to the volume of bullshit you write. How do you now the man utd thing wasnt true? Just passing on what I heard. The first one was me trying to please as I had only been here five mins. You'll have to let us know when you're actually giving your opinion and when you're making stuff up to appease us, you can see the confusion it causes.

Aye, you know what you're talking about like.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry507966 I was unaware that Levy had written a clause in his contract based on league position. That was very shrewd and unconventional and allowed for the switch. Of course you could trawl through my post history and pull out the odd thing but generally I am spot on. I thought you asked Tom to trawl through your post history and p[oint out where you've been wrong though. You want it both ways on that now too? Here's where you said Ashley's influence is "bad news" in the past btw.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=473405 Here's where you said Owen was away to Man U in the summer... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry479056 Seems to me that if you're right on occasion, it's simply down to the volume of bullshit you write.

Aye, you know what you're talking about like.... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry507966

Or is it direct from the source FourWinds10.com

Is that 'news' from here... http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message673540/pg64 Tagline "UFOs, Conspiracy theorists, Lunatic fringe"

A.K.A. A useless cunt I'll say nowt. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/200...ame-for-csa.htm

We're in Zimbabwe!

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960 That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though. What an age we live in. It's brilliant. Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria. Quinine is not very effective against malaria nowadays HF, I wouldn't recommend it. But you're right, there's little investment in antimalarial drugs because the people who need them are poor, that's the hard truth of the matter. But what're you going to do about it? We live in a shitty world. The 17th century sounded better than the 40's and the more modern stuff. There's very little you or I can do, except, when the government try to raise the bar on the strata of society able to access drugs, and give the makers carte blanche to put the drug to market at a price they dictate, we can at least say we disagree rather than taking it up the arse and accepting the free market as the only way.

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960 That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though. What an age we live in. It's brilliant. Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria. On your first point, agreed in principle, i'm just saying it hasnt happened yet and therefore i'm still looking for those 3 drugs that i asked fop to name. Feel free to have a go too. On your second point, are you advocating free gin'n'tonics for the 3rd world? How very colonial of you. Just my 6th form naivite coming to the fore again. Generic drugs don't necessarily mean the poor getting access.

YOU brought up an HIV vaccine as an example of something requiring huge investment that only GSK et al are willing to risk. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542960 That didn't seem to be the case as far as I could tell. I hope you're right and if somethiong is found, all the profits go to the public coffers that funded the research, but my assumption is that the public R&D money goes to private corporations who retain ownership of what they then find. I'm not sure on that though. What an age we live in. It's brilliant. Now if only we could get the 17th century drug Quinine to the 10 Million people a year that die of malaria.

Who's had a pop? Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system. He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable. And you were having a pop, admit it. I assumed you would How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress? The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here? Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy? And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold. Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit? Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds? Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc. Not sure how naive it could be when I make the oppsition point in the same post. Idealistic sure, but fully aware of the inevitability of it, I'd rather be an idealogue on the subject than actively support the exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy. 'Exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy'. You can replace the words drugs with food if you want to get really idealistic and talk about global poverty. It's easy to be idealistic, I went to 6th form too, it's going to solve fuck all though, that's the problem. You oppose food aid too? I suppose you're right. Fuck 'em eh? They're mostly brown anyway.

Who's had a pop? Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system. He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable. And you were having a pop, admit it. I assumed you would How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress? The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here? Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy? And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold. Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit? Exactly. Bearing in mind the bolded, do you know how hopelessly naive the bit in italics sounds? Yes, the last sentence maybe basically true although you can take out the emotive 'unscrupulous' adjective, the same is true of every profit-making company. The world is an unfair place but its not the fault of SMK etc. Not sure how naive it could be when I make the oppsition point in the same post. Idealistic sure, but fully aware of the inevitability of it, I'd rather be an idealogue on the subject than actively support the exclusivity of drugs for the wealthy.

Who's had a pop? Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system. He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable. And you were having a pop, admit it. I assumed you would How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress? The health system, right, I see. It has to change to survive, simple as that. What's that got to do with the pharmaceutical industry though? Are we going round in circles here? Not really, the two are linked rather intrinsically and the whole debate is how the health service come by their drugs....or not. When the health system is changed to allow any drugs to be bought at any price, you don't think that affects the pharmaceutical pricing strategy? And I know the argument that it doesn't affect it at all because we're only 4% of the market and they'll base their prices on the rest of the globe, but my point is, the world should follow our example, we shouldn't throw the towel in because the Free Market has us in a strangle hold. Do you not believe that the market price of drugs is unscrupulously manipulated to maximise profit?

Based on NICE appraisals, or the SMC. Keep asking questions and not answering though Fop.

Who's had a pop? Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system. He said it was him actually, but yes, I agree, change is essential and inevitable. And you were having a pop, admit it. I assumed you would How can I be the one having a pop when I'm saying it should stay as it was and you two are bashing the system for hindering progress?

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story. I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally. I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two. The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion. If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists. Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform? Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with. Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point. Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching. Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK. Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation. I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way. Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year! Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just. I was harking back to the aids debate in your thread where I posted... No doubt, they're excellent to have in the UK. I'm not denying that at all. But then so are plumbers, however, if you watch house of horrors, you'll see that a lot of plumbers take their time over a job to get into the second hour and jack up the price. Could you not conceive of pharma companies doing a similar thing? When they're told they can charge whatever they want for whatever drugs they develop, and that private insurance companies will cover it for the wealthy, you don't think they'll clench their teeth together and inhale sharply before licking their pencil to give you an arse tightening price? I'm not surprised there has been little investment in the AIDs vaccine by the private sector as it really is an object in futility; that's in my opinion before Fop starts. As for the rest, without wanting to be patronising HF it's a bit more complicated than that. I think the arguments have already been done though in the other thread. And first the porn industry and now plumbers? Get some decent analogies. No, that wasn't patronising at all. And Fop gets stick for ignoring questions and harking back to old posts.

Who's had a pop? Chez says it's you and him that want to redesign the system.

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story. I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally. I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two. The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion. If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists. Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform? Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with. Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point. Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching. Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK. Called for a re-design of the system, whether it involves more or less regulation isnt an issue for me, if you do go for the social insurance model then you'd need plenty of regulation. I'm interested in these product that are developed at 10% of cost and enable 100% of revenues. That latter part sounds like a poor deal for whoever sell the rights by the way. Anyway can you point me in their direction and i'll cut you in on the $20m bonus that will certainly come my way from such a deal? I'll be fucking CEO by this time next year! Also do you know why Blair and Brown were so keen to keep the drug companies in the UK and offered them money to stay? Because, like with all good decisions, the benefits to the UK were bigger than the costs. It also meant we still have a manufacturing sector. Just. I was harking back to the aids debate in your thread where I posted... No doubt, they're excellent to have in the UK. I'm not denying that at all. But then so are plumbers, however, if you watch house of horrors, you'll see that a lot of plumbers take their time over a job to get into the second hour and jack up the price. Could you not conceive of pharma companies doing a similar thing? When they're told they can charge whatever they want for whatever drugs they develop, and that private insurance companies will cover it for the wealthy, you don't think they'll clench their teeth together and inhale sharply before licking their pencil to give you an arse tightening price?

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story. I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally. I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two. The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion. If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists. I've never said that 'things are as perfect as can be', and I doubt Chez has either. I would say it was satisfactory though, in my opinion, but there's always room for improvement. You seem to be confusing the UK health system with the global pharmaceutical industry yet again in your post though, the fact that many of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the UK is really quite irrelevant (but at the same time something to be proud of). I'm therefore not sure what your point is about cures and 'cost effective' approaches. How so? I can't see where I might be referring to the NHS. Aren't they based in the UK for the funding? Aren't we spending less to cure more? Shouldn't that ensure a lower cost on drugs?

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story. I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally. I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two. The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion. If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists. Strawman-tastic. I've not argued the system is perfect, in fact didnt the thread i start on this topic call for reform? Renton and I are able to post with certainty on these issues because we've been through these debates professionally a number of times in a 'rational' context where each point is debated in full and properly from both sides rather than the evasive superficial stuff fop comes out with. Renton made the point about which government is going to risk 500m on developing a drug that might not work as thats the fundamental of the debate. Its that question which should be the focus as then you will conclude like everyone else that only investors prepared to take a risk would do this. Once you've got past that point, you can move into the realms of sensible debate. Its hard graft on here just getting to that starting point. Sorry I'm slow to grasp stuff mate. I know I've not spent my life working in the field, but it interests me, and I never like to take someones word for it, I prefer to understand. And I still can't get my head around the inequity of private companies taking 100% of the profit on a cure they've invested 10% in researching. Didn't the thread you started (privatise the NHS) call for less regulation? A move towards the American way, which apparently bats a lower average than the UK.

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story. I think you're confusing the healthcare system per se with the pharmaceutical industry HF. They're not one and the same. And I don't see how the pharmaceutical industry could develop new drugs effectively under the umbrella of the health service, even without taking global economics into account. The key of course is effective regulation, which I think we have personally. I might be confused where you work, but I'm not confusing the two. The regulation is currently effective, who's to say that a better balance couldn't be struck though. The certainty of yourself and Chez that things are as perfect as they can be, is as misguided as Fop's determination that the whole system must be state run in my opinion. If the UK is producing 20% of the worlds best selling drugs (as much as the rest of Europe combined) at less than 10% of the cost (Link), we must be doing something better than other countries. But it goes to show the money pumped into R&D is not necessarily proprtional to the cures developed, and a more cost effective approach exists.

You mean he's releasing soccer skills DVD's without his badges? That's going back to T&G Allen.

Would you prefer to: 1) Keep Kinnear on a month to month and try to push for a sale, ignoring the January window. Ashley out ASAP, whatever the cost. 2) Give Kinnear until the end of the season, put a stop to takeover discussions and concentrate on who to bring in during the January window. Push for a sale after May, wherever we finish in the league and cup. 3) Give Kinnear until the end of the season, put a stop to takeover discussions and concentrate on who to bring in during the January window. Judge Ashley's position on where we finish in the league and cup.

Huge corporations in trying to make a profit shocker! This is no different to any other business except that people get much more emotive when it's about healthcare. It's an industry like any other. It's not. It saves lives. Time Warner just take your mind off all the death that surrounds you. The better argument would be that the huge profit is an excellent incentive to for companies to keep producing the next life saving drug. Lot's of things save lives, directly or indirectly, and many pharmaceutical products (e.g. Viagra, analgesics) have nothing to do with saving lives. If you're going to keep peddling this idea that pharmaceutical companies should be governed by different rules, please direct me to a system that works better for the patient interest. I think you have partly answered it yourself in the last line mind. You don't believe the health industry is any different to....say.....the porn industry? Oh ffs, have you got the Fop virus or something? To answer your question. No. (proof in itself). I don't see how, as someone working in the industry, you can think it's of no more importance than any other commercial enterprise, or shouldn't be overseen in a way that benefits humanity, which of course it does as it stands. I used a flippant example to contrast that. The argument that phamaceuticals can only be force for good is flawed imo though. All the positives are great, but I still think they peddle over the counter drugs people don't need, with worse side effects that need treatments of their own to balance it out. Then there's anti-depressants for kids and that. But that's another story.