Cathy Newman interaction is really annoying, with her one line attack style questions. Peterson's positions on lots of things are nuanced and complex, simply screaming "BUT WOMEN PAID LESS, THAT'S NOT OK", doesn't enhance the viewer in hearing what Peterson has to say.
Given it is 30min interview, rather than the usual 5 mins stuff, there is much more scope to explore fully interesting issues. The likes of Dave Rubin and Sam Harris have far better interviews with him, managing to agree and disagree with him.
I expect George Osborne will get a peerage if and when he ever wants one. I am bemused about the fuss now - I can't imagine it would improve his journalistic street cred to accept an honour from the government while he's a serving editor of a newspaper.
And, of course, we can't rule out Ozzy returning to the Commons at some point. Like King Arthur, he will arise again to save England on its darkest day. (When's Brexit due again?)
Given that it's been the best part of 1500 years, and that England in the intervening period has been subject to civil wars, invasions, occupations, plague, harrying and pineapples, you do wonder what horror lies in store worse than any of that to prompt Arthur from his slumbers.
When Richard was king, England won back territory from the French. He was personally brave, and militarily skilled. Almost all the things for which he's criticised were standard behaviour for the time.
Edited extra bit: on crusade, a force he'd sent to forage was under severe attack, and he personally rode to the rescue even though he didn't have a huge number of men with him. Hard to imagine John doing that.
Acting like an enthusiastic adjutant is not the role of kings.
Richard used England like a milch-cow to fund his foreign adventures, the costs of which lasted far longer than any benefits. Even his achievements came with such sizable maintenance bills that they could well have been funded by PFI.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
450 x 52 = 23.5£m * 1.4 = $32.76m = €26.7m.
Only Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and (slightly) Clayton Kershaw salaried more in sports at current exchange rates. The US contracts are better for financial planning, mind.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
Mkhitaryan - lol never even heard of him !
I think many United supporters may agree with you, the way he has faded
Mr. Herdson, an unfair reading of the situation. If you're speaking of the Angevin territories, he was defending/reclaiming English territories. If you're speaking of the Third Crusade, that was of its time, and many others did likewise.
As for the cost issue, going on crusade was hugely expensive.
Mr. Herdson, an unfair reading of the situation. If you're speaking of the Angevin territories, he was defending/reclaiming English territories. If you're speaking of the Third Crusade, that was of its time, and many others did likewise.
As for the cost issue, going on crusade was hugely expensive.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
Not sure about the signing on fee but what is self evident is that transfer fees are going to make it impossible for many teams to compete for the major trophies
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
Not for much longer as huge wages are dangled in front of them
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
When Richard was king, England won back territory from the French. He was personally brave, and militarily skilled. Almost all the things for which he's criticised were standard behaviour for the time.
Edited extra bit: on crusade, a force he'd sent to forage was under severe attack, and he personally rode to the rescue even though he didn't have a huge number of men with him. Hard to imagine John doing that.
Acting like an enthusiastic adjutant is not the role of kings.
Richard used England like a milch-cow to fund his foreign adventures, the costs of which lasted far longer than any benefits. Even his achievements came with such sizable maintenance bills that they could well have been funded by PFI.
There are stacks of interesting things about pineapples, and they don't include that article, which is tripe. Of course something like butterflies, which are indigenous everywhere in Europe, is more likely to have a unique name in each individual language, given to it when nobody ever went 10 miles from where they were born, than pineapples which were introduced at a time of high literacy and effective Europe-wide travel and communication. The interesting point is why English is the stand-out and doesn't say ananas like everyone else. His answer?
"So why didn't English go with that like just about everyone else did? We decided instead to use a word we already had that previously referred to pine cones. It's pine because it's spiky and apple because it's fruit. (Hey, French calls potatoes "earth apples" — pommes de terre.) We did use "ananas" a little bit back in the 1600s to 1800s, but pineapple prevailed. The fact that the word banana came over from West Africa (from the Wolof language) in the later 1600s probably helped pineapple win for clarity. Other languages didn't have another word to use, so they just stuck with ananas."
Let's just think about that, shall we? No european language had a word for "pinecone" at the time the pineapple was introduced. Well, actually, they all did, and often meaning literally pine, apple: Tannenzapfen in German, pomme de pin in French, piña in Spanish (which he actually gives as a synonym for pineapple, but apparently fails to notice the word looks a lot like "pine"). What an out and out numpty.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
re the previous thread on PFI.Richard Nabavi is quite right in that PFI and outsourcing are different things but are both part of what I describe as a process of marketisation presented as "reform",particularly by Blair,his corrupt cronies,especially under the radar in local government who all made a bomb out of what is a massive Ponzi scheme overall where democratic accountability is diluted by PFI-defined as a method of public procurement,health and other service priorities are distorted as the PFI bill has to be paid first.PFI is composed of DFBO,design,build,finance,operations all wrapped up in a bundle and all contracted out,sub-contracted out then sub-contract again which is its fatal flaw but it is the marketisation of public services overall that outsourcing contributes too.Overall,marketisation costs much more and is tremendous inefficient because of the various layers of management yet it is the philosophical basis that is really important.Philosophers are currently thinking about markets.Where do they belong? Where should they be?Are markets the only answer to a problem?Some of us have thought about these questions and have determined that markets may have a role in public services,properly monitored and regulated,preferably by local authorities but it should be limited and markets have no place in the important shit shovelling that workers have to do to look after our sewage,as individuals,eg nurses,or collectively,eg sewage workers,or those in local government who keep our restaurants and meat hygiene safe.On a practical basis,some services such as rail and mail are better run as one unit by the nation as a whole. We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
... We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
You are the one being ideological.
To see that, answer one question: why on earth have large private companies, throughout the world, moved to outsourcing of non-core activities such as facilities management over the past thirty years?
... We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
You are the one being ideological.
To see that, answer one question: why on earth have large private companies, throughout the world, moved to outsourcing of non-core activities such as facilities management over the past thirty years?
I thought the “because it is the right thing to do” bit was the giveaway.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
... We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
You are the one being ideological.
To see that, answer one question: why on earth have large private companies, throughout the world, moved to outsourcing of non-core activities such as facilities management over the past thirty years?
I thought the “because it is the right thing to do” bit was the giveaway.
Well, quite!
The idea that outsourcing isn't about value and quality is bonkers.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
Can you imagine getting a Hollywood studio to pay their stars' agents fees??
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
Indeed. I thought that the clubs had got together to stop this practice, if the player decides to work with an agent then that arrangement should be between themselves.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
Indeed. I thought that the clubs had got together to stop this practice, if the player decides to work with an agent then that arrangement should be between themselves.
Its like going to buy a new car, and you have to pay for the cost of the car plus the salesman's commission on top.
re the previous thread on PFI.Richard Nabavi is quite right in that PFI and outsourcing are different things but are both part of what I describe as a process of marketisation presented as "reform",particularly by Blair,his corrupt cronies,especially under the radar in local government who all made a bomb out of what is a massive Ponzi scheme overall where democratic accountability is diluted by PFI-defined as a method of public procurement,health and other service priorities are distorted as the PFI bill has to be paid first.PFI is composed of DFBO,design,build,finance,operations all wrapped up in a bundle and all contracted out,sub-contracted out then sub-contract again which is its fatal flaw but it is the marketisation of public services overall that outsourcing contributes too.Overall,marketisation costs much more and is tremendous inefficient because of the various layers of management yet it is the philosophical basis that is really important.Philosophers are currently thinking about markets.Where do they belong? Where should they be?Are markets the only answer to a problem?Some of us have thought about these questions and have determined that markets may have a role in public services,properly monitored and regulated,preferably by local authorities but it should be limited and markets have no place in the important shit shovelling that workers have to do to look after our sewage,as individuals,eg nurses,or collectively,eg sewage workers,or those in local government who keep our restaurants and meat hygiene safe.On a practical basis,some services such as rail and mail are better run as one unit by the nation as a whole. We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
PUNCTUATE FFS. Spaces after commas, spaces after full stops, spaces after question marks. I say this for your own sake; you obviously go to a lot of trouble to write something, but you halve the potential readership by making it look so painful.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
CHEQUE EM OUT Agents make more than £2.5billion from transfer fees in just five years, reveals damning Uefa report
Clubs have spent about 13 per cent of their commission on transfers since 2013 as the rise of the football agent continues
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
Ta.
The exact amount may depend on his pension arrangements though (And probably other stuff too !)
Who pays the player's agents fees? Do the Club get landed with any of it?
The clubs pay the agents’ fees.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
I always find that incredible that this is the norm. The agent is working for the player to get the player the best deal, therefore the player should be paying the agent.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
Indeed. I thought that the clubs had got together to stop this practice, if the player decides to work with an agent then that arrangement should be between themselves.
Its like going to buy a new car, and you have to pay for the cost of the car plus the salesman's commission on top.
My friend works for a firm of solicitors that works for a few premier league clubs.
He loathes agents.
Club A wants to sell player X to club B who want to buy him, player X wants to move to club B.
Yet the transfer hinges on paying the fees of the agent.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
Ah yes, didn’t they get a massive fine under IR35 for paying players as self-employed?
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
Let me guess.. another damning article about Brexit?
It is, but it makes a couple of interesting points. Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. The stronger party will aim to push the losses onto the weaker party. For example if two way trade is reduced by new barriers after the UK has left the Customs Union or the Single Market, the EU will aim to compensate for that loss of trade by pulling economic activity out of the UK and into the EU. So mitigated loss for the EU; aggravated loss for the UK.
Not in the article, the UK could then aim to competitively reduce costs through lower wages and social protection. Expect that to be a big EU concern in the negotiations. I am not sure how politically acceptable lower wages and less social security would be in the UK, given Brexit was sold on helping the left-behinds. Ultimately we may not have a choice.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
Don't tell that to DixieDean
Yes better not, I read Wayne Rooney had helped convince him to move.Hope it works out well for him.A footballer with real potential at a young age.
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Not at all, it's not zero sum at all. The losses to both sides if we crash out chaotically into WTO will be massively larger than if we smoothly transition to a comprehensive trade agreement, especially one including financial services.
Let me guess.. another damning article about Brexit?
It is, but it makes a couple of interesting points. Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. The stronger party will aim to push the losses onto the weaker party. For example if two way trade is reduced by new barriers after the UK has left the Customs Union or the Single Market, the EU will aim to compensate for that loss of trade by pulling economic activity out of the UK and into the EU. So mitigated loss for the EU; aggravated loss for the UK.
Not in the article, the UK could then aim to competitively reduce costs through lower wages and social protection. Expect that to be a big EU concern in the negotiations. I am not sure how politically acceptable lower wages and less social security would be in the UK, given Brexit was sold on helping the left-behinds. Ultimately we may not have a choice.
From the article
"With Britain the smaller party in the negotiations, it must expect the EU27 to seek to split supply chains for the automotive and aerospace sectors over time, gaining from the inevitable border frictions that arise from the UK leaving the single market. The result will be a less efficient European industry, but if more production facilities shift to the continent, the losses could be distributed sufficiently to the UK’s detriment that the EU27 still hopes to come out a winner."
He expects the EU to behave in a majorly chumpish (in the Mandelson sense) manner, for a doubtful and minor gain? Possible, I spose, but there's lots of games theory showing that playing nice is usually a profitable strategy, and in this case, over and above that general point there's the presumed one that at least some on the eu side hope and expect to welcome us back as full members in the next decade.
Enough already of the "zero sum game" btw. It may have had a useful meaning once upon a time, but all it ever seems to mean these days is that resources are not infinite, which they never are, so no point saying it.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
Don't tell that to DixieDean
Yes better not, I read Wayne Rooney had helped convince him to move.Hope it works out well for him.A footballer with real potential at a young age.
Yes he has not come on as well as he should and maybe Wayne will bring him on
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
He's 28 and isn't getting much playing time. Last chance for a World Cup place?
"With Britain the smaller party in the negotiations, it must expect the EU27 to seek to split supply chains for the automotive and aerospace sectors over time, gaining from the inevitable border frictions that arise from the UK leaving the single market. The result will be a less efficient European industry, but if more production facilities shift to the continent, the losses could be distributed sufficiently to the UK’s detriment that the EU27 still hopes to come out a winner."
He expects the EU to behave in a majorly chumpish (in the Mandelson sense) manner, for a doubtful and minor gain? Possible, I spose, but there's lots of games theory showing that playing nice is usually a profitable strategy, and in this case, over and above that general point there's the presumed one that at least some on the eu side hope and expect to welcome us back as full members in the next decade.
Enough already of the "zero sum game" btw. It may have had a useful meaning once upon a time, but all it ever seems to mean these days is that resources are not infinite, which they never are, so no point saying it.
I genuinely don't believe the EU and member states care what public opinion in the UK thinks. As far as they are concerned Brexit is an unfriendly thing to do, which damages them, and their main concern is to limit that damage. Maybe they cut off their nose to spite their face, but we can hardly lecture them on that.
There's a potential deal to be done. The UK agrees to do everything the EU tells it for evermore. The UK gets full access to the EU system and doesn't need to competitively reduce wages, pensions etc. Everyone is happy. Sort of. aka "Taking Back Control". Both sides are some way from that point however.
Question, what do you call a negotiation with a fixed amount of loss or gain, if zero sum is not the correct term?
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Not at all, it's not zero sum at all. The losses to both sides if we crash out chaotically into WTO will be massively larger than if we smoothly transition to a comprehensive trade agreement, especially one including financial services.
This is why the final point is also crucial. If the end-state is not compatible with the phase one agreement, it means this show of negotiating power can be conducted purely as a phoney war because the UK will never been able to take the final leap.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
Don't tell that to DixieDean
Can understand it from his point of view. (See below). Not really from ours. We have Lennon, Lookman and Vlasic already. Would have thought defenders and another striker would be priorities.
I don’t think that tweet makes him look particularly bad. I guess if you like Ben Bradley, it does. But the point is, 22 is not the age of a child. Bradley was an adult when he made those comments.
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Not at all, it's not zero sum at all. The losses to both sides if we crash out chaotically into WTO will be massively larger than if we smoothly transition to a comprehensive trade agreement, especially one including financial services.
This is why the final point is also crucial. If the end-state is not compatible with the phase one agreement, it means this show of negotiating power can be conducted purely as a phoney war because the UK will never been able to take the final leap.
I think you underestimate the power of bureaucratic fudge to smother over the most egregious incompatibilities.
I don’t think that tweet makes him look particularly bad. I guess if you like Ben Bradley, it does. But the point is, 22 is not the age of a child. Bradley was an adult when he made those comments.
Nothing to do with 'liking' Ben Bradley, adults don't (or shouldn't) use language like that about people they happen to disagree with. I've no idea who Matt Turner is, except that he seems to be a lackey of Russian TV, but he sounds an extremely unpleasant young man. I hope he grows up.
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Not at all, it's not zero sum at all. The losses to both sides if we crash out chaotically into WTO will be massively larger than if we smoothly transition to a comprehensive trade agreement, especially one including financial services.
This is why the final point is also crucial. If the end-state is not compatible with the phase one agreement, it means this show of negotiating power can be conducted purely as a phoney war because the UK will never been able to take the final leap.
I think you underestimate the power of bureaucratic fudge to smother over the most egregious incompatibilities.
Do I? It's not me proffering crashing out onto WTO terms as a realistic prospect.
Mr. 43, "I genuinely don't believe the EU and member states care what public opinion in the UK thinks."
Could've been written pre-referendum. As others (and myself) have said before, the two sides don't understand one another well and don't seem interested in learning.
Be interesting to see how Poland/Hungary end up getting along with the EU and the migration resettlement nonsense.
Do I? It's not me proffering crashing out onto WTO terms as a realistic prospect.
Well, quite. The final result is most unlikely to be that outcome, and therefore some fudging is going to be required. I'm confident that the Eurocrats are well up to it. They managed to fudge over the Northern Cyprus problem, this should be a doddle in comparison.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
I don’t think that tweet makes him look particularly bad. I guess if you like Ben Bradley, it does. But the point is, 22 is not the age of a child. Bradley was an adult when he made those comments.
Nothing to do with 'liking' Ben Bradley, adults don't (or shouldn't) use language like that about people they happen to disagree with. I've no idea who Matt Turner is, except that he seems to be a lackey of Russian TV, but he sounds an extremely unpleasant young man. I hope he grows up.
If that’s how you really feel, then you must dislike a A LOT of what people in politics have to say about each other. I’ve had way worse thrown at me, and that’s off the back of being a millennial.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/953707404612349952
Sanchez will be on over 20x Rashford wages.
Richard used England like a milch-cow to fund his foreign adventures, the costs of which lasted far longer than any benefits. Even his achievements came with such sizable maintenance bills that they could well have been funded by PFI.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
Only Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar and (slightly) Clayton Kershaw salaried more in sports at current exchange rates. The US contracts are better for financial planning, mind.
As for the cost issue, going on crusade was hugely expensive.
"I have seen people die, I have seen people blown up, I have seen people shot. Even the Taliban doesn't quite prepare you for UKIP though."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukips-bolton-could-get-back-with-ex-who-sent-racist-texts-about-meghan-markle-11212038
You tinker.
"So why didn't English go with that like just about everyone else did? We decided instead to use a word we already had that previously referred to pine cones. It's pine because it's spiky and apple because it's fruit. (Hey, French calls potatoes "earth apples" — pommes de terre.) We did use "ananas" a little bit back in the 1600s to 1800s, but pineapple prevailed. The fact that the word banana came over from West Africa (from the Wolof language) in the later 1600s probably helped pineapple win for clarity. Other languages didn't have another word to use, so they just stuck with ananas."
Let's just think about that, shall we? No european language had a word for "pinecone" at the time the pineapple was introduced. Well, actually, they all did, and often meaning literally pine, apple: Tannenzapfen in German, pomme de pin in French, piña in Spanish (which he actually gives as a synonym for pineapple, but apparently fails to notice the word looks a lot like "pine"). What an out and out numpty.
Edit - sorry that’s employee nic
We need to take back control of our public services and applaud common ownership because it's the right thing to do and start getting value for money by basing services on value and quality and not just price and profit as exists now under the marketisation of public services which is simply a tool of the small state ideological fantasists.
The great Paul Foot got it right in 2004.
http://drphilhammond.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PFI-Report-Private-Eye-2004.pdf
'Reader’s Comment of the Day: Farage is the closest we have to King Arthur'
https://tinyurl.com/ybkh8thy
And he keeps returning, over and over again.
Premier League clubs paid record £174 million to agents in one year
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/04/07/premier-league-clubs-paid-record-174-million-agents-one-year/amp/
Mr. Meeks, why do you say that? Has he supported the common sense policy of a trebuchet-based justice system?
So that is another bloody great tranche, on top of the numbers you have been talking?
To see that, answer one question: why on earth have large private companies, throughout the world, moved to outsourcing of non-core activities such as facilities management over the past thirty years?
He spent only six months of his reign in England.
Mr. Eagles, irrelevant. He also fought against the French (rather well). The land he was buried in was English at the time.
https://www.ft.com/content/7641d1f8-fc2e-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167
The idea that outsourcing isn't about value and quality is bonkers.
The only time an agent should be paid by the club is if he "found" a player for them.
He couldn't be any more French if his name was Frenchy de McFrenchface
Well, you could ask. (Just the once!)
And more paragraphs, please.
Clubs have spent about 13 per cent of their commission on transfers since 2013 as the rise of the football agent continues
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/5362277/agents-2-5billion-transfer-fees-uefa/
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
He loathes agents.
Club A wants to sell player X to club B who want to buy him, player X wants to move to club B.
Yet the transfer hinges on paying the fees of the agent.
http://www.espnfc.com/story/305178/report-reveals-arsenal-tax-avoidance
Not in the article, the UK could then aim to competitively reduce costs through lower wages and social protection. Expect that to be a big EU concern in the negotiations. I am not sure how politically acceptable lower wages and less social security would be in the UK, given Brexit was sold on helping the left-behinds. Ultimately we may not have a choice.
"With Britain the smaller party in the negotiations, it must expect the EU27 to seek to split supply chains for the automotive and aerospace sectors over time, gaining from the inevitable border frictions that arise from the UK leaving the single market. The result will be a less efficient European industry, but if more production facilities shift to the continent, the losses could be distributed sufficiently to the UK’s detriment that the EU27 still hopes to come out a winner."
He expects the EU to behave in a majorly chumpish (in the Mandelson sense) manner, for a doubtful and minor gain? Possible, I spose, but there's lots of games theory showing that playing nice is usually a profitable strategy, and in this case, over and above that general point there's the presumed one that at least some on the eu side hope and expect to welcome us back as full members in the next decade.
Enough already of the "zero sum game" btw. It may have had a useful meaning once upon a time, but all it ever seems to mean these days is that resources are not infinite, which they never are, so no point saying it.
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/953888740681936898
Or the 2014 "Case for Iran". Or "our friends in Hamas/Hezbollah".
https://twitter.com/MattTurner4L/status/953348831051120640
There's a potential deal to be done. The UK agrees to do everything the EU tells it for evermore. The UK gets full access to the EU system and doesn't need to competitively reduce wages, pensions etc. Everyone is happy. Sort of. aka "Taking Back Control". Both sides are some way from that point however.
Question, what do you call a negotiation with a fixed amount of loss or gain, if zero sum is not the correct term?
Or are those critcising this fellow now suggesting that the poor should have no birth control? Or should have to pay for it?
IMO the remarks he should be criticised for are those suggesting that poor people are less worthy because they are poor. Not the vasectomy comment.
A person’s worth does not depend on their wealth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/health/drug-prices-hospitals.html?_r=0
https://www.rt.com/shows/sputnik/415804-korea-winter-olympic-games/
Would have thought defenders and another striker would be priorities.
Could've been written pre-referendum. As others (and myself) have said before, the two sides don't understand one another well and don't seem interested in learning.
Be interesting to see how Poland/Hungary end up getting along with the EU and the migration resettlement nonsense.
He's being attacked for people imagining something he didn't write.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
“Died with dignity” to describe Holocaust victims. FFS.
As @Richard_Nabavi put it the other day: “What on earth has got into the Labour Party?”
An embarrassed silence from decent Labour folk is all we’re ever going to get, I suspect.
It’s not just those placing contracts with companies in difficulties who fail to do the most elementary due diligence, it would appear.
https://twitter.com/haroldsrise/status/954046982221266944
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.