jeems

He must just be wanting people as good sighted as he is, the Eagle eyed referee dat he is

Page 37 o da times bottom right hand corner, wanting people to contact dem if they wanted to play for yell.

Did anybody reply to Yell's advert in da paper?, what were the terms and conditions? do you get a free peat stack whan u sign on, and a profit related bonus of a bag o peats for every win?

Whats happening on da girse front dis year. Are we going to be overgrown again?

Why dosn't the League put one cup up for the local primary Schools to play for, one for the suggestion of the summer League with no Ness first 11 players allowed to be fielded, a cup for the full teams to play before the parish cup as a warm-up, and one cup say for a junior festival of football to played over a weekend in the summer run by Ness or the league itself, and finally revive the winter indoor comp and play it monthly over the winter open to any 4/5 aside team that meets the leagues eligabilty rules e.g players must reside in the southern League area. That way everybody that wants football can get it and it might encourage folk back that have stopped playing or entice folk in to the game that have not been part of any team yet?

Thats not a bad option Wheesht, if there was no Southern League then they might get enough players for both teams, maybe they should take signing on forms to the AGM?

Just wondered if there was going to be any Southern League football at all this season was all, some of the rumour mongers were saying that they were going to limit each team to 3 A players, and encourage older palyers to play as well cant see that working very well

Just wondering if anybody has heard whats happening with the League this year? rumour seems to be that they are going to stop it this year? If so does anyone have any idea's as to how it might be kept going in another format or do the players and club's that are involved now think it should be folded, Is it worth keeping going with just 3 teams and playing four knock-out cups?

Thats right new magnie, and if there is no available suitable diversion then the flight cant go ahead. As Angel stated Scatsta often stays open late to complete their flying program, for this to happen Sumburgh often stays open for a diversionary airport to allow them to operate, obiviously they charge for this service as you state but it means that the public money sunk into Sumburgh is already helping the operation work.

I was trying to show that the arguements used so far to keep it open really wont have much impact on the oil companies decision, If they can get savings they will move that is the one certain thing in all of this, if Serco wont give them the savings they want, they will move. What the arguements are being used for is an attempt to force the council into funding something that the oil companies should be paying for.

Im glad you got that off your chest , you misunderstand me what I am trying to say is if we are to keep both Sumburgh and Scatsta available to the shetland public and the oil industry then we have to come up with a better arguement than Jacque from Paris will never travel to shetland on holiday again because Billy going to the oil rig got the last sausage roll! I would assume but may be wrong that it is easier to buy seats and improve the internal facilities at the larger terminal in sumburgh cost ways than to do the same at Scatsta given your assement on the shared use of resources causing delays, why would the Shetland public be happy at putting money into upgrading an airfield still to come second to the airfields primary and privately owned interests. the staus quo may still prevail yet, but if not then surely as a whole we should look at how we keep this valuable asset available to us, a possible avenue would be for the council look at developing it with a mind for the inter island and ambulance service while maintaining a level of service that could cope with periodical diversions of weather diverted traffic? From what I have read here nobody is saying it should shut but as it is, it would be unable to handle all Shetland bound traffic on a given day as well as its own work load, and surely thats not customer friendly either?

Yes I see what you mean about it being a good link pooks in 1997 the total number of passengers both through the terminal and transit at sumburgh was 361505 would this number have included all passenger movememts eg oil charters, scheduled services, charter aircraft for boats crew changes, and helicopter refuellers from Aberdeen etc? Pre 1999 Sudden Stop was some of the work currently at Scatsta not undertaken at Sumburgh? and did this work not co-exsist with the Scheduled service? Also what would be the specialist services that we could lose in Shetland from both locations if the work was to move? It is imperative that these should be noted and retained at all costs.

I think I get it now what you are saying is at the moment the planes that operate into Scatsta on the oil work are not able to land full? Its kind of like hiring a 8 seat taxi and the driver telling you that you can only use 4? So Consortium looks at the Sumburgh extension as a way to get value for money from their supplier? eg they can fill the planes up more both ways instead of less than half full? thus saving money on planes? and then they wont have to lobby the Council or the Scottish exectutive and europe for funds to exentend Scatsta? Does the work you stated you thought would help Scatsta and subsequently Shetland included putting in better naviagation aids for approaching aircraft up to the standard of say Kirkwall or Sumburgh?

It was just a suggestion Sudden Stop, obivously their would be a net loss of jobs if the work left Scatsta for Sumburgh or Shetland altoghether, but what im trying to say is that some of the arguements used by people on here are not going to keep the jobs in Scatsta. You have stated that the airfield at Scatsta is not able to cope with anymore traffic? so therefore you could have a situation where for instance you have a day in the summer when Sumburgh is fog bound, and Scatsta is available, but it seems what you and certain councillors are trying to say is that Sumburgh's traffic can divert to Scatsta yes? Where does all this traffic park? are the present users of the airfield (the oil companies) going to be happy when their helicopters and jets cant get parked or manouvered? Not only would the airfield need to be greatly increased in size in regards to manouvering area's and stands the terminal would have to be increased in size too yes? all this investment to keep the airfield open as an weather diversion? The flights flying to Scatsta are according to rumour never full and if as you state the wind is in the wrong direction then do they more often as not stop at Sumburgh to offload a helicopter load of passengers and then fly on to Scatsta?, thus having to pay two sets of landing charges just to reach Scatsta, this does'nt make sense logistically or finacially. None of this is the fault of the staff at Scatsta who I have no doubt do their job with the utmost professionalism, but as you have stated it cant cope with anymore traffic how can it be a suitable weather diversion for Sumburgh when there is no capacity to take the traffic, the council wont invest nor will the oil companies to make it fit for that dual porpose.