|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 14:51:15 GMT
Jesus wept. What a cockwomble. And there we have it, the real face of the left , chap/chapess unlike you i would partake a pint with knowing our politics are very different as is your right. I believe in your freedom of speech to say whatever you want, even though i disagree with your post i will fight to defend it . and there is the difference i believe you have the right to believe in what you want and say what you want and i will defend your right to it ,on the other hand it appears from your post that you are one of those who believe in free speech and though only as long as you agree with it, it also appears to be a labour trend Why is that the real face of the Left? That's the real face of the poster only.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 14:50:13 GMT
Please stop trying to twist my words.
What I'm clearly trying say is that Brown & Blair could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis. This is on the basis that very very few people across the work understood that there was a problem at all. The leaders of the Conservative Party at the time did not anticipate the crisis, and nor did the leaders of the USA, Germany, Spain, France, or Italy, nor the Bank of England, nor the heads of the banks themselves. Remember, they all thought that the massive interdependancy between banks was a great success, as they thought that it had killed off risk by spreading it across the system.
In addition, if they had have anticipated it, I doubt very much that there was anything they could have done about it. Banking is international, and for any real change in banking oversight you need international agreement, which takes time and is difficult to acheive Even since the banking crisis, very little has been done to prevent it happening again - you really think that Basel III would prevent it?
Any unilateral action to prevent the crisis would have killed the business of the major banks, demolished thier share prices and therefore capital base, and probably have set off a local banking crisis right here anyway.
Finally, even in the unlikely event that Brown & Blair had been able to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis in the UK without killing the UK banks, you think we would have been unaffected by the world-wide recession?
The banking crisis was an inevitable result of decades of deregulation and increasing complexity in the system. Shocks happen from time to time. Its how you respond that matters.
100% agree that Blair and Brown couldn't anticipate. I mean the banking crisis, price of gold, 15000 poles arriving, the outcome of 2 wars, PFI free money I think we are agreeing on stable ground here. And they certainly didn't prepare for anything Totally not read, or responded to, what I have written.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 13:08:49 GMT
Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
You mention the Keynesian fiscal stimulous.......however, this only works if you also apply other Keynesian rules, like during the good times, you reduce spending, reduce debt and reduce taxation. This gives you the leeway to provide that fiscal stimulous in the bad times. However, Labour did the opposite, and increased taxes, increased the debt and increased spending during the good times. When the bad times hit, Labour had nowhere to go, and that was their biggest failing. No good quoting Keynes if you are only going to apply his logic 50% of the time. Yes, the banking crisis was caused by the banks, but because of their handling of the UK economy, Labour were screwed. UK net debt 1996 = 44.8% of GDP. UK net debt 2007 = 42% of GDP. UK public spending 1996-97 39.9% GDP. 2006-07 40.9% of GDP. So there was a small increase in public spending leading up to 2008, after years of reducing debt as a % of GDP. Understandable after many years of underinvestment. Besides, even if you don't follow Keynes in the good times, it doesn't mean that you should not return to Keynes in the bad. Response to recession should = fiscal stimulus, regardless of what's gone on before, not the equality worsening asset-bubbling half assed monetary stimulus we've been subjected to instead. Evidence for this is in the weak recovery.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 11:23:53 GMT
What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
UK banks are governed by the UK who can go above Basel III (the foundations of which were already established pre-crash) if they want. They could also have implemented earlier if there was the backbone or understanding too. Remember it was Brown who promised no more boom or bust, and in truth he was correct under him there only was bust. PS no idea how competent the leaders of the other countries were but I take your drift that Blair and Brown were incapable of making decisions unless told to do so by other world leafers Please stop trying to twist my words.
What I'm clearly trying say is that Brown & Blair could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis. This is on the basis that very very few people across the work understood that there was a problem at all. The leaders of the Conservative Party at the time did not anticipate the crisis, and nor did the leaders of the USA, Germany, Spain, France, or Italy, nor the Bank of England, nor the heads of the banks themselves. Remember, they all thought that the massive interdependancy between banks was a great success, as they thought that it had killed off risk by spreading it across the system.
In addition, if they had have anticipated it, I doubt very much that there was anything they could have done about it. Banking is international, and for any real change in banking oversight you need international agreement, which takes time and is difficult to acheive Even since the banking crisis, very little has been done to prevent it happening again - you really think that Basel III would prevent it?
Any unilateral action to prevent the crisis would have killed the business of the major banks, demolished thier share prices and therefore capital base, and probably have set off a local banking crisis right here anyway.
Finally, even in the unlikely event that Brown & Blair had been able to anticipate and prevent the banking crisis in the UK without killing the UK banks, you think we would have been unaffected by the world-wide recession?
The banking crisis was an inevitable result of decades of deregulation and increasing complexity in the system. Shocks happen from time to time. Its how you respond that matters.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 8:51:01 GMT
Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
I fully agree that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy. The risks and potential safety rules were known before the financial crisis. Countries could've acted unilaterally or multilaterally to put safety rules in place, what we have in place today isn't rocket science. Blair and Brown decided not to act therefore confirming their culpability. It is always the government of the day responsibility to plan for unforseen shocks. By rights with the strength of the economy left to them by the tories the country should've of been running a stonking surplus by then to deal with the crisis. Instead labour as always was spending ever penny they had or could borrow for the generations of tomorrow to worry about. Pity they 'spent' so much 'free' money on PFI schemes that now suck the NHS and education budgets dry. Probably not Blair or Brown's signature on those contracts so that wouldn't be there fault. What, in what I have written, implies that Blair and Brown were incapable of running a modern strong economy? They were not running the US economy. Are ou saying that the leaders in the US, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, pretty much every developed country, were also incapable of running a modern economy?
How exactly would the UK have been able to unilaterally put in place regulation to keep our banks out of the international banking system, without destroying their business?
What we have in place today would not prevent a further systemic failure. The only real change is Basel III, and that is an international agreement - which is my point.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 14, 2017 7:32:31 GMT
Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope. But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really. Explain how they were then? Did they repeal Glass-Steagall? Did they make 10s of thousands of sub-prime loans in the US, and re-package them? Did they give those repackaged loans AAA ratings, allowing banks to use them as grade A capital? Did they bring down Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide? Did they force RBS to buy ABN Amro?
If the Tories would have acted so differently, to tighten banking regulation and break up the bigger banks - how come they've not done this since being in power?
The banking crisis was a systemic international failure, and it brought down our banks because our banks are international.
What has screwed us up since, in my opinion, is the fact that for the first time since the Great Depressionthe Government has reacted to a recession with austerity, rather than Keynesian fiscal stimulous. This is the main reason why we have had the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Same in Europe. Compare to the US, for example.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 13, 2017 13:05:43 GMT
If I may give an alternative view:
Pensions - the removal of dividend tax releif is a minor factor in the DB scheme issue. Its mainly due to the enforced indexation and changes in valuation methods imposed by the 1993 and 1995 Pensions Acts, imo. Basically a bad overreaction from Maxwell by the Major government.
The Labour government had to bail out the banks - yes, they did, they had no choice. A number of banks became too big to fail, which was a result of the loosening of regulations in the 80's and 90's. I certainly don't remember the Torys calling for tighter banking regulation, or splitting up the large banks.
Regarding austerity - the way that the Tories have handled the economy since 2010 is pretty strange, when you look at it. Reducing the money supply through fiscal policy on the one hand, while increasing it through Quantitative Easing on the other. This method can only lead to greater inequality. Greater inequality means less money circulating in the economy. There's only so much money a person can spend on things other than assets, leading to assets booming in price, tying up yet more money.
With repayment of student loans and the high costs of housing, the young generally have very little spare cash. This is very bad for the economy, as money is tied up rather than being productively circulated.
This is the only time since the Great Depression that a downturn has been followed by austerity, and its the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Coincidence?
Finally, regarding the proposed increase in business taxation. I agree with keeping corp tax competitive, but at the moment it is extraordinarily low. Even after Labour's proposed increase it would be one of the lowest in the developed world, lowest in the G7 I believe. So why would this force businesses to move offshore?
A nice have your cake and eat it argument. If there is a problem with pension valuations it is equally labour's fault as was the banking crisis. After all they were the government for 13 years with large majorities. They made the law they replaced what they didn't like and kept what they agreed with. Of course the counter argument is they didn't know what they were doing and were trapped in the headlights like rabbits. Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 13, 2017 11:38:45 GMT
To me jeremy corbyn is about hope for a fairer society. I want my grand children to at least have access to the health service and education i had. I want them to get on the housing ladder and have jobs with proper contracts. Under the current regime that will not happen,meanwhile the wealthy will increase there immense riches and the rise that is all to apparent in real poverty in modern britain will gain pace. If you wanted all of that, why did you vote Labour? And if you voted Brexit, again, for the sake of your grandkids, why did you do that? It was the most shortsighted thing you could have possibly done. Whichever way you cut it, your grandkids will have to rely on inheritance from you and their parents to have a comfortable second phase of life. Meaning they will have to work hard for their first 45 years if they want all the things you have just mentioned. There is no pension pots, the last labour government saw to that when Brown raided it. Banks are wise to mortgage lending after the crash in 2007-09 crippled the banking system which the government then had to mostly purchase with the tax payers money which we are still paying for right now. And you want to vote for the same party that did this in the first place? Madness! The rich aren't getting richer because they are creaming it off interest rates are they? They are at 0.5%. It's because most of them have had to invest in this country, through the bad times but now it has improved they have created an economy and jobs, but now it's looking better you want to penalise them for that? Increase taxes so far and All that will happen is they will shrink the size of their companies, make people redundant, increasing unemployment and possibly move businesses back off shore. Oh and Alan Sugar put £56m in personal tax back into the treasury last year and that won't include his corporation tax, his employee contributions and business rates. What if he moves off sure and other businesses do the same? Have labour got a magic pot to replace them? We are in 7 years of austerity because we have to be, it's the only chance of us giving my kids and your grandkids an opportunity of what you outlined. Borrowing has trebled because the mess was so great it has taken longer to pay everything back. It's basic maths. I'm 36, I set up a business in 09 in a recession when I got made redundant and worked damn hard, I consider myself to be reasonably successful, I took no salary for 18 months but now, with employees I am enjoying what I made, I am in the higher tax bracket, why should I be overly penalised for what I did in 2009? Corbyn quite simply had no basic business costs for his manifesto, it was nothing but a pipe dream using the inexperienced youth to grapple votes. Fair play it works. But I would rather have the DUP in coalition than that lunatic. If I may give an alternative view:
Pensions - the removal of dividend tax releif is a minor factor in the DB scheme issue. Its mainly due to the enforced indexation and changes in valuation methods imposed by the 1993 and 1995 Pensions Acts, imo. Basically a bad overreaction from Maxwell by the Major government.
The Labour government had to bail out the banks - yes, they did, they had no choice. A number of banks became too big to fail, which was a result of the loosening of regulations in the 80's and 90's. I certainly don't remember the Torys calling for tighter banking regulation, or splitting up the large banks.
Regarding austerity - the way that the Tories have handled the economy since 2010 is pretty strange, when you look at it. Reducing the money supply through fiscal policy on the one hand, while increasing it through Quantitative Easing on the other. This method can only lead to greater inequality. Greater inequality means less money circulating in the economy. There's only so much money a person can spend on things other than assets, leading to assets booming in price, tying up yet more money.
With repayment of student loans and the high costs of housing, the young generally have very little spare cash. This is very bad for the economy, as money is tied up rather than being productively circulated.
This is the only time since the Great Depression that a downturn has been followed by austerity, and its the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Coincidence?
Finally, regarding the proposed increase in business taxation. I agree with keeping corp tax competitive, but at the moment it is extraordinarily low. Even after Labour's proposed increase it would be one of the lowest in the developed world, lowest in the G7 I believe. So why would this force businesses to move offshore?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 30, 2017 8:15:59 GMT
Not if you get 10,000 subscriptions...
I guess the club would have to look at what other clubs have done, look at what happened subsequently, decide if that fits with Rovers, and make a decision based on likelihoods.
No doubt if I now say if it knocks 10000 off the gate etc etc etc. Lets keep it real. You get my point. There would be an position where the club would make money out of the deal, you can't just say that if it knocks 100 off the gate it would be a disaster. You are ignoring the other side of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 24, 2017 12:23:43 GMT
Maybe, you'd have to look at the figures. If it takes 100 off the gate, but you get a thousand subscriptions, then it might be worth it, for example. If it takes a 1000 off the gate it's financial disaster. Not if you get 10,000 subscriptions...
I guess the club would have to look at what other clubs have done, look at what happened subsequently, decide if that fits with Rovers, and make a decision based on likelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 23, 2017 11:06:02 GMT
I would happily pay tenor a month for this to happen. But then some so called fans may stop attending and just watch for £10 per month whist fans at the games pay £16x2 per month. Not worth while Maybe, you'd have to look at the figures. If it takes 100 off the gate, but you get a thousand subscriptions, then it might be worth it, for example.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 23, 2017 9:29:30 GMT
No only extended highlights unfortunately. I would happily pay tenor a month for this to happen. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 9, 2017 11:10:46 GMT
A sprinkler system is not going to get us in the Championship. Let's blow it on some cheerleaders. Why have you a picture of my sister on your post please ? Why are you masturbating over it?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 8, 2017 14:11:37 GMT
I reckon Billy was featured to attract girls to attend, good looking fella he is Ages 5-11
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on May 6, 2017 15:10:06 GMT
I'd take Luke back. I know he never scored but he assisted in several goals and his skills are worthy of our team. To be fair to him most of the time we pumped high balls to him and expected him to reach his full five foot, f**k all, and win the ball. Maybe if he was here permanently they could learn to play it to his feet and see what he could do. But, at the end of the day, we have no idea what DC is thinking so I am happy to leave it up to him. I think he knows a bit more about it than the rest of us. I just can't wait until the start of the next season. What the heck am i going to do on my Saturdays until August? Total assists = 0 Rubbish, I can remember 2 in one game
|
|
|
Keeper
May 5, 2017 13:48:16 GMT
Post by faggotygas on May 5, 2017 13:48:16 GMT
is it poor, or is it average? How many league teams currently have a home grown keeper as their no. 1? Hint, there's one in the premier league, and his team's just been relegated...
I guess that must be Pickford?
It doesn't necessarily have to be home grown players; just players like Harrison and Lockyer for example who have been brought through from the youth team.
I don't know how it fares with many other clubs but i'd have expected more than brief stints from Shane Higgs and Ryan Clarke in my 40 odd years of watching them.
By home grown, I mean brought through from the youth team. I think its pretty rare, quite possibly because of the long time and experience it often takes for goalkeepers to be useful.
Yep Pickford.
|
|
|
Budget
May 5, 2017 12:36:38 GMT
Post by faggotygas on May 5, 2017 12:36:38 GMT
Very good, if I may add? A 'donation' sounds altruistic, like a donation to charity, but it's not. The Al Qadi family owns the club (almost) outright, so any donation will increase the value of their asset by the same amount (because it's not a loan), therefore their overall wealth would remain largely the same. It will, however, tie up cash that may be more usefully employed elsewhere. When you are as rich as them, investment decisions are about useful allocation of liquidity, of course. This post explains my "thinking" emoji. Although not sure donating £1m would increase the value of the club by that sum as it would depend on how DC spent the money, as if we're still a just a top 10 side this time next season then BRFC1883 wouldn't be worth anymore than they are today but the £1m would have gone, if it had all been spent on 1 year deals? It would immediately increase the value of the club by £1m, as there would be £1m cash in the bank.
I believe players are often valued by their purchase value amortised over the length of the contract. So any player bought for £500,000 would, for the first year, have a value of £500,000. At the end of the contract they would have a value of £0. I think that this is one of the reasons why players are given new contracts in the Prem when only 2 years through a 5 year contract - it revalues them in the accounts.
I'm no expert though.
|
|
|
Keeper
May 4, 2017 17:42:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by faggotygas on May 4, 2017 17:42:44 GMT
Apart from the lad that went to Arsenal who we never got to see, we have a very poor record at producing our own keepers! Ryan Clarke and.....err.. Bristol City don't seem to have fared much better in this department either, maybe its a problem in this part of the world (Jack Butland aside!) is it poor, or is it average? How many league teams currently have a home grown keeper as their no. 1? Hint, there's one in the premier league, and his team's just been relegated...
|
|
|
Budget
May 4, 2017 17:25:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by faggotygas on May 4, 2017 17:25:38 GMT
Just to lay down some truth: Wage budget is based on the current season, not as previously stated the previous season. this is to allow clubs who have significant investment or a large unexpected income (FA Cup run, Player sale)the flexibility to make changes. investment as donations count as the same income type as any other revenue (normally categorized as match-day, commercial, Broadcasting), so if DC wants a higher budget the AQs could inject money but that would be non refundable rather than the loans we have received so far (probably explains the meeting to discuss how much donation will be put in clubs can spend 60% of their turnover on player wages, everything else including staff wages are outside of that and does not count towards FFP or the "playing budget" Transfer spend also doesnt count (Partingtons fee didnt effect the "playing budget" only the final profit/loss in the accounts) Promotion to the championship removes the 60% limit and hikes the permitted losses to a mind blowing £13Million,elegation to league 2 reduces the % to 55% Sources: My knowledge and www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php , www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.phpVery good, if I may add? A 'donation' sounds altruistic, like a donation to charity, but it's not. The Al Qadi family owns the club (almost) outright, so any donation will increase the value of their asset by the same amount (because it's not a loan), therefore their overall wealth would remain largely the same. It will, however, tie up cash that may be more usefully employed elsewhere. When you are as rich as them, investment decisions are about useful allocation of liquidity, of course.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 26, 2017 13:10:42 GMT
Full blown crowdfunding isn't a bad idea, as its becoming an increasingly popular way for small businesses with ambition to raise funds for a specific purpose. The usual criteria are that the crowdfunding investor gains genuine shares in the company (although they don't have to rank alongside the existing shares - they could be a separate category with, e.g., no voting rights, and of course they are illiquid), perks are offered, and the funding is for a specific purpose. Local brewer The Wild Beer Company recently raised over £1.75m to build a new brewery, for example: www.crowdcube.com/companies/the-wild-beer-co/pitches/bgNOwZ#This could be a good way of raising funds for a supporters bar at a new stadium. For transfer fees though, I'm not so sure - to easy for the money to be wasted and leave a bad taste in the mouth of investors, which is the opposite of what the club would want, and very difficult to project a return on investment. These are genuine investments, not donations.
|
|