Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
I suspect it's back down or there will be a new PL next season with 14 clubs plus 6 promoted from the Championship.
So rather cynically (and in keeping with the cynical times) if that happened, and it trickled down to League 1, i'd be delighted, as the mighty Swindon would get a reprieve that they frankly do not deserve...
Mr. Ed, Amazon's also been trying to get into videogames. And failing very badly.
Sport should be easier for them as it mostly involves throwing money at something.
Edited extra bit: slightly reminds me of Google's Stadia. Pretty odd such big companies could be so wrong. And Microsoft ducking out of Mixr (think I got the name right) felt just silly. Livestreaming's only going to get bigger.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That's naive.
That's like the insanity of the EU insisting that rights to the Premier League must be split up in order to "increase competition", however individual fixtures are still now only with Sky or BT. It hasn't increased competition or consumer choice, its just meant that if you as a consumer want to watch both you need to pay both Sky and BT now. The cost of buying both Sky and BT is more than what it was to get just Sky alone.
The EU f***ed fans over forcing a split on rights (but allowing a monopoly on fixtures to continue). The same would happen to Sky here, they'd be f***ed over for the same reason fans were - people would want and have to pay for both.
Interesting how every single issue for you is seen through the prism of your hatred for the EU (a proxy for all foreigners no doubt). You are completely obsessed. Let me let you into a secret of life Philip: most organisations have negative aspects to them , however big or small. Some people in my village obsess over how bad the Parish Council is. They tend to be people who have very small lives with little else to occupy them. Get a hobby (that isn't keyboard related) and do something positive that will let more love and less hate into your life. Get out and get some fresh air.
O/T: In answer to the question posed by very good article by Richard Nabavi: No there are not, they are a bunch of lying toads.
(sadly I will not be able to read Philip's inarticulate response, or that of any Pinocchio SNPites, as I am going out to get some fresh air - it is a beautiful day!)
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That's naive.
That's like the insanity of the EU insisting that rights to the Premier League must be split up in order to "increase competition", however individual fixtures are still now only with Sky or BT. It hasn't increased competition or consumer choice, its just meant that if you as a consumer want to watch both you need to pay both Sky and BT now. The cost of buying both Sky and BT is more than what it was to get just Sky alone.
The EU f***ed fans over forcing a split on rights (but allowing a monopoly on fixtures to continue). The same would happen to Sky here, they'd be f***ed over for the same reason fans were - people would want and have to pay for both.
Interesting how every single issue for you is seen through the prism of your hatred for the EU (a proxy for all foreigners no doubt). You are completely obsessed. Let me let you into a secret of life Philip: most organisations have negative aspects to them , however big or small. Some people in my village obsess over how bad the Parish Council is. They tend to be people who have very small lives with little else to occupy them. Get a hobby (that isn't keyboard related) and do something positive that will let more love and less hate into your life. Get out and get some fresh air.
O/T: In answer to the question posed by very good article by Richard Nabavi: No there are not, they are a bunch of lying toads.
(sadly I will not be able to read Philip's inarticulate response, or that of any Pinocchio SNPites, as I am going out to get some fresh air - it is a beautiful day!)
Good morning to you too Nigel.
Engaging your usual tactic of insulting people but with no response to the point made.
Must be so much easier to just be a foul mouthed troll than to actually respond to points in enlightened intelligent debate for one of as lacking in intelligence as yourself. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
I can't see them creating their own OT PPV model - that requires expertise and it would have leaked.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
Amazon probably wouldn't take the risk - the backlash could be a problem for prime and the rest of their empire. Also it's a massive sunk cost that couldn't be easily recovered in the way the Mouse could do it (separate subscription service).
It will be interesting to see if anything leaks soon about broadcasting for ESL - while everyone involved might have expected a backlash from fans, I'm not quite sure they expected quite the reaction they got from everyone from the PM to Prince William.
ESL will be, at the start anyway, utterly toxic to brands involved with it.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
One thing a lot of commentators are overlooking about Sky is that ever since BT started bidding for football rights Sky have had to have a Plan B ready just in case. So it's not as though Sky have been banking on getting the same football rights forever and ever.
And European football is screened by BT not Sky, so BT will have as big a problem as Sky
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
It's the Guarantee that is the problem and worse the fact it's 6 teams when currently only 4 qualify.
That means you have 6-10 teams all trying their hardest to get into the top 4 positions which is why every match in the Premier League is so competitive - that just isn't the case elsewhere.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
In a 21st century that will be dominated by Asia, as part of the EU we would have been one of the largest 3 or 4 economic and trading blocks alongside the US, China and India while having open borders with our largest destination of export, the EU.
Outside we will not have as much strength on our own even if we have regained sovereignty, the same would apply to Scotland. It would be leaving a G7 and G20 economy and open borders with the rest of the UK and would be a less significant force in the world after as an independent state (though of course it would also be swapping the UK for the EU on Sturgeon's argument so would not be a fully independent state anyway)
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
It's the Guarantee that is the problem and worse the fact it's 6 teams when currently only 4 qualify.
That means you have 6-10 teams all trying their hardest to get into the top 4 positions which is why every match in the Premier League is so competitive - that just isn't the case elsewhere.
What the owners and financiers don't seem to understand is that is also why the PL is bigger than La Liga, Bundesliga or Serie A. Competitive balance helps sustain fan interest. Take it away and what is special about the PL compared to the Bundesliga?
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
No, the arguments are similar, but the numbers are very different. Scotland's economy is three to four times more dependent on trade with England's than the UK's was on trade with the EU. And the damage is actually likely to be even larger than that, because of the greater alignment of regulations and standards between England and Scotland than between the UK and the EU. Making up a similar level of damage will therefore need three to four times more corresponding advantages elsewhere. And I, and most others, are just not seeing them. And the SNP are not producing them.
It is not fear of change, it's fear of making a bad change.
Well 50,000 at the cricket is one option, in a mostly unvaccinated population. It's tempting to assume its a new scary variant, and that might be the case, but I think there are probably other factors to consider.
It doesn't have to be one thing or the other - indeed it's almost certainly a combination of several such factors.
Well 50,000 at the cricket is one option, in a mostly unvaccinated population. It's tempting to assume its a new scary variant, and that might be the case, but I think there are probably other factors to consider.
It probably is the variant, we had people saying that the rise here in December was becuase of Christmas shoppers but it was becuase the Kent variant was much more transmissive. The reason I'm not panicking is that higher transmissibility isn't linked with vaccine dilution, I think that's also why the scientists aren't panicking. The red listing is the right decision though, we should have done it two weeks ago when we added Bangladesh and Pakistan to the red list. No need to take that risk even if it's probably not a very big one.
I think higher transmission is sort of linked to vaccine dilution in that you need more coverage. We should have very good coverage in the UK though.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
That's still only about half of the EU average per pop rate on that basis.
Though how much testing is India doing? What proportion of overall cases is that likely to be? Do other countries do the equivalent of our ONS infection prevalence tests?
No data on whether others do population samples. In Europe, the most prolific testers in toto are UK and Denmark, who do more per pop.
India do approx 1/3 as many tests per pop as Germany, which is higher than I expected. In India 1 per 1000 is 1.5 million per day.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
Growing cynical in your old age but in the case of premier league football you are absolutely right. The time to moan about money ruining it was 30 years ago . Lets face it the Champions League and UEFA are hardly angels and the CL is fairly tedious in its format (purely because it maximises money at the moment) . Why the government and a tory government at that are wanting to interfere is beyond me .
Agreed. People seem to think that football is some kind of scared national institution. It isn't any more. It's just a private members club run by various associations at the country, region and world level. If 12 clubs want to set up their own closed shop league with a worldwide audience then they are perfectly free to do that. However, there are (or must be) consequences, not least because of the impact on club history, the local community etc.
The can no longer be governed by the FA, UEFA or FIFA. With immediate effect, they can no longer take part in competitions run by those organizations. So no Premier League and form the players no Internationals, no EUROs, no World Cups. The "legacy fans" can choose to stick by their team in the new franchise league or not.
The calculation that the big 6 are making is that 90% of their "legacy fans" will stick with them. I suspect they are correct. There will be a lot of wailing and a few fans will walk away but the vast majority will go along with it.
I suspect it is a negotiating ploy though and it won't come to that. The elite clubs now have the power to dictate to the associations. European competitions are effectively a closed shop anyway. It very difficult, if not impossible, for a team outside the elite to qualify for the group stages. They will just come up with a fudge that keeps it theoretically possible for tier 2 teams to make it but in practical terms there will be more hoops to jump through and there will be some historical coefficient applied to ease the path for the elite clubs.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Further confirmation that this government is not a conservative one but quite lefty, interventionist and authoritarian.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
Just to give grist to Nick’s mill, your special case made me raise an eyebrow.
I think the better way of putting it is the old adage:
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
No, the arguments are similar, but the numbers are very different. Scotland's economy is three to four times more dependent on trade with England's than the UK's was on trade with the EU. And the damage is actually likely to be even larger than that, because of the greater alignment of regulations and standards between England and Scotland than between the UK and the EU. Making up a similar level of damage will therefore need three to four times more corresponding advantages elsewhere. And I, and most others, are just not seeing them. And the SNP are not producing them.
It is not fear of change, it's fear of making a bad change.
Yes the numbers are different, which kind of disproves the size and proximity issue claimed. There's a proximal trade bloc of 440 million people right next door to Scotland and yet they're not trading with it as much as they are with England. Why?
The reason Scotland is more integrated with England is because of choices made in the past, not because of some incontrovertible law of physics or economics. The reason England is more integrated with Europe (but falling) is because in part of choices in the past, not incontrovertible laws.
Ultimately the argument for Brexit and the argument for Scottish Independence both boil down to the same core issue: Who do you want to control who makes decisions? Do you want to take back control?
If all you've got is "you're more integrated with England so suck it up and stay like that whether you want to or not" then that argument deservedly lost in 2016 and it will deserve to lose in 2023 too.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
I'd like to see the science behind that, and whether levels would steadily decline/equilibrate over time with just "stability" in terms of atmospheric concentrations, or whether they'd need to be actively sucked out.
If it's the latter, then I'd favour CCS solutions.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Further confirmation that this government is not a conservative one but quite lefty, interventionist and authoritarian.
The urge to regulate football knows no ideological boundaries. https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1384428326597627904 Good decision by officials in #China to ban teams in the Chinese Super League from having company names as club names. It was cheezy, commercial & bound to end with endless name changes over the years. Somehow Beijing GuoAn & Shanghai Shenhua snuck through though?
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
Not exactly a paradise of liberalism, though.
I'm not sure that "one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration" is an accurate statement. They have lots of people shoved into dorms with less than full rights. And to get "PR" you need to demonstrate big liquid funds.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
"effectively guaranteed" ... they have made it increasingly difficult for non-elite clubs to qualify for the CL and even the Europa League in recent years. The last roll of the dice here, before the franchise ESL, is to keep it theoretically possible for non-elite clubs to qualify while simultaneously making it easier for elite clubs. Maybe there isn't one last roll, hence the move by the big 6?
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
It cant be declared cancelled on the website until the necessary internal legislative levers have been pulled. The vote is on Thurs I believe.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
I heard a UEFA official say this morning that sanctions/expulsions for the 6 will be applied from the 2021-2022 season and there will be no changes to this years semi and finals in the Champions and Europa Leagues
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If you read the international climate change reports they do talk about becoming carbon negative throughout the second half of the 21st century, but it is all based on been able to scale feasible carbon capture. Which we cant do at the moment.
There are some neat ideas out there (especially the artificial limestone ones) but the fact that the CO2 is dispersed through the atmosphere at objectively low concentrations is a tough nut to crack.
Yup. But.... It is what the whole 2050 is based on. Carbon capture by planting trees is just low information nonsense to make people feel involved. You need to take the stuff out of the atmosphere at significant scale to get to net neutral.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
No, the arguments are similar, but the numbers are very different. Scotland's economy is three to four times more dependent on trade with England's than the UK's was on trade with the EU. And the damage is actually likely to be even larger than that, because of the greater alignment of regulations and standards between England and Scotland than between the UK and the EU. Making up a similar level of damage will therefore need three to four times more corresponding advantages elsewhere. And I, and most others, are just not seeing them. And the SNP are not producing them.
It is not fear of change, it's fear of making a bad change.
Yes the numbers are different, which kind of disproves the size and proximity issue claimed. There's a proximal trade bloc of 440 million people right next door to Scotland and yet they're not trading with it as much as they are with England. Why?
The reason Scotland is more integrated with England is because of choices made in the past, not because of some incontrovertible law of physics or economics. The reason England is more integrated with Europe (but falling) is because in part of choices in the past, not incontrovertible laws.
That's absurdly simplistic as both are important factors.
Ultimately the argument for Brexit and the argument for Scottish Independence both boil down to the same core issue: Who do you want to control who makes decisions? Do you want to take back control?
If all you've got is "you're more integrated with England so suck it up and stay like that whether you want to or not" then that argument deservedly lost in 2016 and it will deserve to lose in 2023 too.
That is a strawman. The argument is, "you're going to lose a fair amount from declining trade if you leave. Where are the gains to offset that?" And, in terms of economics, the SNP has come up empty, as have you. If they were honest about that, then fine. But they have ludicrously claimed without evidence that they will make themselves better off through vague assertions that don't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
It was always much more for the middle classes to have some 'feature' in their lounge which wasn't the telly. A lifestyle choice over and above anything else.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
I heard a UEFA official say this morning that sanctions/expulsions for the 6 will be applied from the 2021-2022 season and there will be no changes to this years semi and finals in the Champions and Europa Leagues
TLG wants to use napalm to burn all bridges instantly, but negotiations work better with a carrot and stick.
Banning all clubs and for international competitions players from 2021/22 onwards if this isn't resolved by [deadline, maybe 30 June] puts pressure on the clubs to back down and reach a compromise putting this issue to bed.
Kicking them out and closing the door just guarantees a schism.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
Growing cynical in your old age but in the case of premier league football you are absolutely right. The time to moan about money ruining it was 30 years ago . Lets face it the Champions League and UEFA are hardly angels and the CL is fairly tedious in its format (purely because it maximises money at the moment) . Why the government and a tory government at that are wanting to interfere is beyond me .
Agreed. People seem to think that football is some kind of scared national institution. It isn't any more. It's just a private members club run by various associations at the country, region and world level. If 12 clubs want to set up their own closed shop league with a worldwide audience then they are perfectly free to do that. However, there are (or must be) consequences, not least because of the impact on club history, the local community etc.
The can no longer be governed by the FA, UEFA or FIFA. With immediate effect, they can no longer take part in competitions run by those organizations. So no Premier League and form the players no Internationals, no EUROs, no World Cups. The "legacy fans" can choose to stick by their team in the new franchise league or not.
The calculation that the big 6 are making is that 90% of their "legacy fans" will stick with them. I suspect they are correct. There will be a lot of wailing and a few fans will walk away but the vast majority will go along with it.
I suspect it is a negotiating ploy though and it won't come to that. The elite clubs now have the power to dictate to the associations. European competitions are effectively a closed shop anyway. It very difficult, if not impossible, for a team outside the elite to qualify for the group stages. They will just come up with a fudge that keeps it theoretically possible for tier 2 teams to make it but in practical terms there will be more hoops to jump through and there will be some historical coefficient applied to ease the path for the elite clubs.
That's where the art of compromise is going to lie.
Finding a way that makes it look like the Superleague Twelve are at risk of not being in the competition, whilst ensuring that will only happen when Hell freezes over.
A bit different to the situation now, and maybe that difference is worth fighting for.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
I heard a UEFA official say this morning that sanctions/expulsions for the 6 will be applied from the 2021-2022 season and there will be no changes to this years semi and finals in the Champions and Europa Leagues
Truth is we don't know - I suspect UEFA are checking their rule book with the finest tooth comb and multiple sets of lawyers.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
I think what we're finding is that pure free market economics is popular only for so long as it delivers the goods.
What the West has discovered over the last 20 years or so is that many of the fruits are now going outwith the West or to the internationally mobile & global super-rich, so it's lost some of its political fanbase.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
At least if they hang themselves it saves you the trouble of putting them up against a wall.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
Just to give grist to Nick’s mill, your special case made me raise an eyebrow.
I think the better way of putting it is the old adage:
“We are all socialists in a crisis”
The argument that government intervention to stop the football breakaway is unjustified intervention in the free market is bunkum. A "free market" is an abstraction and real markets are social constructs embedded within a wider society. Football clubs are very different from most consumer goods. I had some brand loyalty to SAAB and was sorry for their demise but competition among car manufacturers (often a bit distorted in terms of a simple free market model) has been a very good thing. Loyalty to a football club is not transferrable on a whim and despite global marketing is often based on locality and accidents of birth and identity. I've been cursed by an emotional attachment to a couple of teams that has probably shortened my life expectancy through relegation stress! There should be a new framework for football that separates and protects ultimate club identity from owners (they could lease marketing and operation rights). I'd also adjust limited liability rules for club owners unless they are fan based. Majority shareholders should be personally liable for debt.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
"effectively guaranteed" ... they have made it increasingly difficult for non-elite clubs to qualify for the CL and even the Europa League in recent years. The last roll of the dice here, before the franchise ESL, is to keep it theoretically possible for non-elite clubs to qualify while simultaneously making it easier for elite clubs. Maybe there isn't one last roll, hence the move by the big 6?
There seems to be a quaint belief amongst the “true” supporters that only football played on the pitch should determine which level of the football pyramid a team plays in. Well, maybe, but it’s commercial acumen alone which determines a club’s position over anything but the very short term. I support Hull City and can attest to the effect of commercial ineptitude only too painfully.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
45% and falling fast yes. It used to be a majority, heck it used to be a large majority. Not the case anymore.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
Nobody has ever said it is the be-all and end-all. But the fact is that the EU is about nine times as important to our trade as you'd think it would be from population alone, which you used to measure Scotland's trading opportunities after it leaves the UK. Other factors are clearly far more important, and all those factors point towards Scotland being significantly better off in the Union with England, unless there are non-trade arguments for independence. It is the SNP's failure to make those that is extraordinary.
That's ridiculous, if you're claiming proximity and size are important then the EU is a much bigger size than the UK and extremely proximal too.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
No, the arguments are similar, but the numbers are very different. Scotland's economy is three to four times more dependent on trade with England's than the UK's was on trade with the EU. And the damage is actually likely to be even larger than that, because of the greater alignment of regulations and standards between England and Scotland than between the UK and the EU. Making up a similar level of damage will therefore need three to four times more corresponding advantages elsewhere. And I, and most others, are just not seeing them. And the SNP are not producing them.
It is not fear of change, it's fear of making a bad change.
Yes the numbers are different, which kind of disproves the size and proximity issue claimed. There's a proximal trade bloc of 440 million people right next door to Scotland and yet they're not trading with it as much as they are with England. Why?
The reason Scotland is more integrated with England is because of choices made in the past, not because of some incontrovertible law of physics or economics. The reason England is more integrated with Europe (but falling) is because in part of choices in the past, not incontrovertible laws.
That's absurdly simplistic as both are important factors.
Ultimately the argument for Brexit and the argument for Scottish Independence both boil down to the same core issue: Who do you want to control who makes decisions? Do you want to take back control?
If all you've got is "you're more integrated with England so suck it up and stay like that whether you want to or not" then that argument deservedly lost in 2016 and it will deserve to lose in 2023 too.
That is a strawman. The argument is, "you're going to lose a fair amount from declining trade if you leave. Where are the gains to offset that?" And, in terms of economics, the SNP has come up empty, as have you. If they were honest about that, then fine. But they have ludicrously claimed without evidence that they will make themselves better off through vague assertions that don't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
Of course they're important factors but they're not the be all and end all. They're not even the most important factors, the most important factors are the decisions we make - which is what taking back control is all about.
In terms of economics potential gains have been stated. If you're too pigheaded to comprehend what those gains are, for either Brexit or Sindy, then you deserve to lose the Union like you deservedly lost the EU.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
It's a sad day when we confiscate someone else's property, but sometimes it needs to happen, but it is possible the most unbritish thing to confiscate without a fairly assessed compensation in return.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
The problem is even if there is a 'compromise' and the big clubs get a little more. They'll be back in a few years with the same thing.
If the intent of these owners is leveraging and maximizing their returns, and not based on whats 'good for the game' then this is going to be the cycle. It will never be enough, as the principle of the current structure is that the big clubs will have to leave stuff on the table for the smaller clubs.
I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Further confirmation that this government is not a conservative one but quite lefty, interventionist and authoritarian.
The urge to regulate football knows no ideological boundaries. https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1384428326597627904 Good decision by officials in #China to ban teams in the Chinese Super League from having company names as club names. It was cheezy, commercial & bound to end with endless name changes over the years. Somehow Beijing GuoAn & Shanghai Shenhua snuck through though?
Guo an means 'happy nation" Shenhua "flower of Shanghai" (shen is the local shortening for the city. They also are the two who haven't changed sponsor names for over 20 years. So. Though they are also company names they aren't associated in the first place, with the company now, but with the football club.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
The way that emissions get reduced, as with most other economic progress, is by changes in technology. Those of us on the right need to push the benefits of technological changes, otherwise those on the left who don't care about economic growth will continue to push their dogmatic 'solutions' instead.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
I think what we're finding is that pure free market economics is popular only for so long as it delivers the goods.
What the West has discovered over the last 20 years or so is that many of the fruits are now going outwith the West or to the internationally mobile & global super-rich, so it's lost some of its political fanbase.
Also, the nature of capitalism is that as a certain P Mandleson said we are happy with the 'flilthy rich' but there comes a point where that snaps. When the damage outweighs the benefits then people can change their mind very quickly.
We don;t mind the system as long as the system generally works. When it doesn't it really doesn't work.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
It's a sad day when we confiscate someone else's property, but sometimes it needs to happen, but it is possible the most unbritish thing to confiscate without a fairly assessed compensation in return.
Fair compensation for a brown field site without planning with buildings that need to be removed - you could argue the value is zero.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
Just checked and the -78% by 2035 is in the number from the Sixth Carbon Budget.
Don’t worry Nick, I know full well that I I am (or, rather, was) a customer! That’s why I’ve found it so easy to walk away from Arsenal.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
I'm enjoying the surge of leftism on the right in all this - Tory government flirting with compulsory 50%+1 fan management, and now talk of seizing the assets of the owners, presumably without compensation (which actually goes a little further than I would, but don't let me stop your revolutionary zeal!)
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
Just to give grist to Nick’s mill, your special case made me raise an eyebrow.
I think the better way of putting it is the old adage:
“We are all socialists in a crisis”
I don’t think that’s quite true. There was an Everton fan on TalkSPORT yesterday afternoon and he was really positive about this, and I can see his POV. This is a chance to reset English football. Perhaps Everton wouldn’t rise to the top, but they’d be in with a shout for sure.
So to reiterate my earlier post, the one thing I don’t want is for the owners of the six clubs to be saved from themselves. They need to suffer, even if it is painful for the fans of those clubs.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
Just checked and the -78% by 2035 is in the number from the Sixth Carbon Budget.
Where will the Greens go now?
The greens aren't too interested in pragmatic change. They want revolution and to smash the system. Not for the system to actually work.
Lefties on Times podcast re the football thing "this just points to everything that is wrong with society". No it doesnt. Stop being a drama queen.
If you want to see drama then you need to see the response of the UN working group to the Sewell Report - I can't recall ever seeing such an absurdly hyperbolic reaction:
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
The way that emissions get reduced, as with most other economic progress, is by changes in technology. Those of us on the right need to push the benefits of technological changes, otherwise those on the left who don't care about economic growth will continue to push their dogmatic 'solutions' instead.
The climate debate is coming to an end realistically. The technology is increasingly here, we are now simply getting it rolled out.
The Tories I hope will be in power until the end of this decade. By that time most carbon emissions will be removed from the UK and the rest will be in the planning stages of getting removed too. Cars will be electric, electricity will be green, the bulk of the work will be done. We need to find ways to offset agriculture and a solution to aviation and a few more things but we're getting there.
Once that happens what do the hairshirt extremists have left in their armoury? What is left to "overthrow capitalism" once the "emergency" has been resolved? By capitalism.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
There really are echoes of Brexit. The public on being told “you can’t stop this, it’s how things are now” is saying “why not”; and Boris looks to be deciding to back them.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction. I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.
Coincidentally a fat, talentless oaf is inspiring similar feelings in me.
I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.
Coincidentally a fat, talentless oaf is inspiring similar feelings in me.
I understand your disillusionment with Alex Salmond but that's perhaps a little unfair.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
Fine. Perfectly happy with that. Looking forward to the Manchester City Phoenix vs Ramsbottom United derby.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction. I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
I saw that, her comments were bonkers in the context of an ongoing trial, difficult to see how her words can't be incitement to riot, given they were spoken at a demonstration that turned violent. "I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.
Coincidentally a fat, talentless oaf is inspiring similar feelings in me.
According to the UEFA website, Real Madrid play Chelsea a week today in the CL semi-final first leg. If the game goes ahead, presumably all the threats to throw the clubs out the tournament will prove to have been bluster.
All the big bookies have suspended betting on the UCL and UEL outrights.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
Yes, for UEFA this is existential. They should obviously kick them out of the semi-finals. Question is whether it’s legal under EU law
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
Eye opener isn't it.
Football is part of the entertainment industry (and other things too). Every single important financial card is held by the individuals across the world who fund it by attending, buying stuff, paying to watch it and watching it by paying for it indirectly by being advertising's target. The tree will fall where the supporters want it to.
Huge vested interests (this new league is by no means the only grinding axe on the scene) will use their immense power to help organise and inform the mass of people who actually fund the game.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
No, I'm not wrong. We can't and won't stop releasing all forms of fossil fuels. For one thing that would mean closing all heritage railways and museums in the country, which emit a few thousand tons of CO2 each year.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
Agreed.
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
I think one key vector of public policy debate over the next 30 years (possibly the biggest one, after the economy) will be climate change.
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
Just checked and the -78% by 2035 is in the number from the Sixth Carbon Budget.
Where will the Greens go now?
The greens aren't too interested in pragmatic change. They want revolution and to smash the system. Not for the system to actually work.
It might be interesting where the German Greens go with policy.
They have a lot of easy targets ... 80 coal power stations, and one new one opened last year.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene to prevent it deepening further in other areas.
I've decided to support the Super League now. I can't bear to be on the same side of the argument as that fat talentless Hollywood oaf James Corden. Thanks a lot James.
Coincidentally a fat, talentless oaf is inspiring similar feelings in me.
I understand your disillusionment with Alex Salmond but that's perhaps a little unfair.
Afaik Eck is yet to comment on the topic though I dare say it’s only a matter of time. I assume the scales are still pretty firmly attached to your eyes regarding your particular oaf, if only for party political reasons?
Mr. Royale, the UN thought that gypsies who had squatted in Dale Farm for over a decade in contravention of numerous legal rulings being evicted by police was a breach of human rights.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.
Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
Also, Maxine Waters, a congresswoman from California, has given the defendant pretty strong grounds for appeal by stating that she is looking for a murder conviction. I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
I saw that, her comments were bonkers in the context of an ongoing trial, difficult to see how her words can't be incitement to riot, given they were spoken at a demonstration that turned violent. "I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
There have been trials stopped in this country by such reporting. BTW Channel 4 news coverage of the trial, even after it had started, and unlike BBC, made not the slightest attempt at fair and factual coverage. If it had been a domestic trial their journalists would all have been prosecuted.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
By the end of tomorrow, the only likely news story is going to be the verdict in the George Floyd murder trial.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
The judge also saying that effectively the defence can appeal because of that silly congresswoman’s comments
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene in other areas to prevent its continuance.
Jesus. Gift horse, mouth, or what
You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall
Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
A towering heap of emotional bullsh*t
If Liverpool embodied the City the club would need to be taken over by the government because the corruption in running it was so endemic and its performance was so rotten
Liverpool is a collapsing City, riven with entitlement, criminality, militancy and socialism from the days of Derek Hatton onwards, and that is one reason for the super league.
Liverpool the city is a vastly diminishing asset for the club whilst Liverpool's overseas fan bases in booming emerging markets are a vastly appreciating asset. And so the owners rightly want to move the club closer to where the fan base might be in the future. Who can blame them.
The domestic fans of these clubs want some kind of golden share in their club when they are the past of it and not the future.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.
Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.
Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
Blenheim Palace is a national asset. Chelsea football club isn't. This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
Interesting choice. Chelsea maybe not a national asset
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
Disagree. At best, allow phoenix clubs, starting from the conference.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
If we are following precedent they need to start at Step 4, so 3 years minimum to get to the Conference, another 4 to get back to the Premiership.
We dont need to follow precedent, start them in the championship. From a practical viewpoint clubs lower than that wont be able to deal with 5000 away fans without disorder.
Why should these clubs get a massive favour that Bury didn't? Start them right down the bottom.
The aims are to preserve the Premier League/Football League structure and devalue the super league.
Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
One issue with starting 6 Phoenixes in the Conference (or lower) is that only 2 clubs get promoted from the Conference per season.
Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
Why not? as I pointed out last night it would make for some very interesting matches,
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Yes, of course ... but having something to lose is the very definition of taking a principled stand. I don't blame Klopp for being careful about what he says and Neville is in a privileged position to take on the role of people's champion.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
Guaranteed CL football is no better than the ESL proposals.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
"effectively guaranteed" ... they have made it increasingly difficult for non-elite clubs to qualify for the CL and even the Europa League in recent years. The last roll of the dice here, before the franchise ESL, is to keep it theoretically possible for non-elite clubs to qualify while simultaneously making it easier for elite clubs. Maybe there isn't one last roll, hence the move by the big 6?
There seems to be a quaint belief amongst the “true” supporters that only football played on the pitch should determine which level of the football pyramid a team plays in. Well, maybe, but it’s commercial acumen alone which determines a club’s position over anything but the very short term. I support Hull City and can attest to the effect of commercial ineptitude only too painfully.
Agreed. I'm not sure most fans are that idealistic though. Most are also painfully aware that the playing field is not level and getting less level all the time. You can have all the commercial acumen you like but unless you have access to serious money you are not going to challenge the elite clubs. Even those that make a case for the EPL being "the best league in the world because it's so competitive" must admit that it's only really a competition within the top 6, the odd exception notwithstanding. It's the same in each league in Europe only more so with only a top 2 or 3 in most top leagues outside England.
Finding it very difficult to give a **** about the footie news.
Today we have 6-8 clubs (with some very limited variation) competing for the PL title and CL places. Liverpool isn't about to be relegated so the whole "there must be relegation" is moot as far as those clubs are concerned (not 100% sure about the Arse, that said...).
So take them out and free up the league, CL, Europa League whatever.
You have 50,000 odd people with season tickets per club. The rest it doesn't matter too much if they are in L4 or Laos. A fan is a fan unless people are suggesting hierarchy of fans.
And craziest of all, you have the grotesque chaos of PB commentators - PB commentators - scuttling around advocating that football and private companies should be subject to govt whim.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene to prevent it deepening further in other areas.
There are some surprisingly commodious stadia in tiers 7 and 8 of football - 4,500 capacity at Ashton United's Hurst Cross, 6,500 at Staybridge Celtic's Bower Fold, 7,500 at Grantham's South Kesteven Sport Stadium, 3,513 at Lancaster City's splendidly named Giant Axe, 4,500 at Mossley's Seel Park, 13,500 all seated at Widnes's Select Security Stadium. (Admittedly football is not the primary sport played here). These all seem astonishingly large for the attendance they presumably get.
In the 80s and 90s, when these clubs were both in the Vauxhall Conference*, the games between Stafford Rangers and Stalybridge Celtic were habitually the best attended matches of the season in that league, as thousands of Glaswegians headed south for the joy of hurling sectarian abuse at each other in slightly different surroundings and often outnumbering locals by some distance.
*As it will always be know regardless of the sponsor. Vauxhall have somehow managed perpetual publicity, albeit at the cost of association with a fifth-tier product.
Been thinking about ESL this morning. Watched James Corden’s excellent, passionate demolition of the Satanic Six.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
The problem in Britain is that most of the horse bolted long ago. The selling-off of national, strategic and cultural assets has been actively celebrated as part of a healthy market process since the early 1980s, even more so than in the United States, and even now the Johnson administration refuses to intervene to prevent it deepening further in other areas.
Comments
Sport should be easier for them as it mostly involves throwing money at something.
Edited extra bit: slightly reminds me of Google's Stadia. Pretty odd such big companies could be so wrong. And Microsoft ducking out of Mixr (think I got the name right) felt just silly. Livestreaming's only going to get bigger.
Of course geographic proximity helps but it is not the be all and end all. If it was the be all and end all then the EU would be an overwhelming majority, not an ever shrinking minority.
O/T: In answer to the question posed by very good article by Richard Nabavi: No there are not, they are a bunch of lying toads.
(sadly I will not be able to read Philip's inarticulate response, or that of any Pinocchio SNPites, as I am going out to get some fresh air - it is a beautiful day!)
Engaging your usual tactic of insulting people but with no response to the point made.
Must be so much easier to just be a foul mouthed troll than to actually respond to points in enlightened intelligent debate for one of as lacking in intelligence as yourself. Enjoy the rest of your day.
ESL will be, at the start anyway, utterly toxic to brands involved with it.
Assuming this is all not some theatrical negotiating ploy, perhaps Klopp and those like him will lobby quietly in the background although I'm not sure how much leverage they would have.
If it is all a negotiating ploy and Klopp knows this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the big 6 "back down" with concessions granted to give them effectively guaranteed CL football and Klopp and the like get the credit for forcing the u-turn ... a win win.
I actually hope they don’t chicken out of this. All I’ve been saying is how this could be stopped very quickly. Clearly it is going to be very difficult for the likes of @TheScreamingEagles and @Philip_Thompson if it does go ahead. They agree that as things stand this is an abomination and all true football fans should oppose it. But they still hope that the situation can be rescued.
Personally I hope there isn’t a compromise. Maybe JP Morgan are smarter than me and they have it all figured out. But I think it will go tits up for them. I’m almost certain they’ll never get to play in England again, simply because the local HSE won’t allow it for fear of trouble at the grounds. You only have to look at the Leeds fans last night. I for one would stand outside the Emirates and heckle any scum bag entering the ground.
No, they’re going to have to leave the country and almost certainly leave Europe altogether. Then there would be a case for the community assets - the stadiums - being seized by the government and sold to fans groups to start again.
There should be no guarantees. If that is the solution may as well proceed with the ESL.
I’m angrier than ever. And more clear-headed. The problem with this breakaway is that the owners are treating the clubs as pure businesses because they’re privately owned. But that’s not the case. It’s like saying Blenheim Palace is purely a business, or Chatsworth House, because they are also privately owned.
If you buy Blenheim Palace from the Duke of Marlborough you’re entitled to make a profit from it, you can open it wider to the public, chuck in some more cafes, maybe even have a safari park. You get the fun of being the Owner of a Palace. But the fun is not unlimited. What you can’t do is knock half of Blenheim down to build a skyscraper hotel, or transport it brick by brick to Shanghai.
You can’t do that because it’s Grade 1 Listed and it is has serious protection from the state, as an historic treasure and a cultural adornment, beautifying the nation
The great football clubs of Britain are just as important, socially, culturally, historically, as stately homes. Perhaps more so. The government should create some form of Grade 1 listing for these vital assets. Yes they can be bought and sold, and yes you can make a profit. But no, they are not “franchises”
List them. Tell the owners to get stuffed
That means you have 6-10 teams all trying their hardest to get into the top 4 positions which is why every match in the Premier League is so competitive - that just isn't the case elsewhere.
So either way your logic fails. If size and proximity win then go with the EU. If size and proximity don't win, then weigh up other factors.
Fear of Scottish Independence and Fear of Brexit come from the same place: Fear. It is heart over the head, but just the other way. Being afraid to change.
Change is natural and ultimately whether Scotland is in or out of the UK, whether the UK is in or out of the EU, won't make that much difference in the end. So what matters is simply who do you want making the decisions.
Outside we will not have as much strength on our own even if we have regained sovereignty, the same would apply to Scotland. It would be leaving a G7 and G20 economy and open borders with the rest of the UK and would be a less significant force in the world after as an independent state (though of course it would also be swapping the UK for the EU on Sturgeon's argument so would not be a fully independent state anyway)
It is not fear of change, it's fear of making a bad change.
India do approx 1/3 as many tests per pop as Germany, which is higher than I expected. In India 1 per 1000 is 1.5 million per day.
Football is a special case. The one thing I want to avoid is the owners backing down. I won’t go to Arsenal again as long as the current owner is in place. So we need to give them enough rope to hang themselves with first.
The can no longer be governed by the FA, UEFA or FIFA. With immediate effect, they can no longer take part in competitions run by those organizations. So no Premier League and form the players no Internationals, no EUROs, no World Cups. The "legacy fans" can choose to stick by their team in the new franchise league or not.
The calculation that the big 6 are making is that 90% of their "legacy fans" will stick with them. I suspect they are correct. There will be a lot of wailing and a few fans will walk away but the vast majority will go along with it.
I suspect it is a negotiating ploy though and it won't come to that. The elite clubs now have the power to dictate to the associations. European competitions are effectively a closed shop anyway. It very difficult, if not impossible, for a team outside the elite to qualify for the group stages. They will just come up with a fudge that keeps it theoretically possible for tier 2 teams to make it but in practical terms there will be more hoops to jump through and there will be some historical coefficient applied to ease the path for the elite clubs.
However, that represents 0.02% of our current total emissions so would be utterly negligible in the context of a 99.98% reduction and would present no issues at all to the atmosphere.
I think the better way of putting it is the old adage:
“We are all socialists in a crisis”
https://www.insider.com/norway-top-covid-19-denier-dies-from-virus-after-hosting-house-parties-2021-4
And the reason for stamping out urban woodburners is PM2.5 and PM10 - small particles - rather than C02, and the health problems that result.
It was a policy disaster ever to call them Green.
The reason Scotland is more integrated with England is because of choices made in the past, not because of some incontrovertible law of physics or economics. The reason England is more integrated with Europe (but falling) is because in part of choices in the past, not incontrovertible laws.
Ultimately the argument for Brexit and the argument for Scottish Independence both boil down to the same core issue: Who do you want to control who makes decisions? Do you want to take back control?
If all you've got is "you're more integrated with England so suck it up and stay like that whether you want to or not" then that argument deservedly lost in 2016 and it will deserve to lose in 2023 too.
If it's the latter, then I'd favour CCS solutions.
https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1384428326597627904
Good decision by officials in #China to ban teams in the Chinese Super League from having company names as club names. It was cheezy, commercial & bound to end with endless name changes over the years. Somehow Beijing GuoAn & Shanghai Shenhua snuck through though?
They have lots of people shoved into dorms with less than full rights. And to get "PR" you need to demonstrate big liquid funds.
For UEFA, the calculation is more straightforward. They simply should kick them out. Perhaps the dirty dozen would take it to CAS, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.
That is a strawman. The argument is, "you're going to lose a fair amount from declining trade if you leave. Where are the gains to offset that?" And, in terms of economics, the SNP has come up empty, as have you. If they were honest about that, then fine. But they have ludicrously claimed without evidence that they will make themselves better off through vague assertions that don't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
Banning all clubs and for international competitions players from 2021/22 onwards if this isn't resolved by [deadline, maybe 30 June] puts pressure on the clubs to back down and reach a compromise putting this issue to bed.
Kicking them out and closing the door just guarantees a schism.
Finding a way that makes it look like the Superleague Twelve are at risk of not being in the competition, whilst ensuring that will only happen when Hell freezes over.
A bit different to the situation now, and maybe that difference is worth fighting for.
But not all that different.
Those who have been following closely are not convinced the prosecution have adequately made their case, there will be a very high chance of civil disorder across the USA if the policeman is acquitted.
The UK is no longer under EU law. We can do what we like. Ultimately we should just seize the assets of these owners and possibly have them horse-whipped, in public, right in front of Wembley Stadium.
Honestly, this is turning me into a Marxist. Protect the Game.
What the West has discovered over the last 20 years or so is that many of the fruits are now going outwith the West or to the internationally mobile & global super-rich, so it's lost some of its political fanbase.
This feels to me like the moment when the bullies - after decades of pushing everyone else around, helping themselves to bigger and bigger slices of the pie - push their luck just that bit too far and the patience of everyone else snaps. I don't want them to back down now. I don't want a compromise, because a compromise will just be another episode of the bullies helping them to a bigger slice of pie, further entrenching their position. This is the reckoning now. I want the confrontation, because I think the bullies will lose. And football will be the better for being rid of them.
It feels like this moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NGfH1DnRc
I'd caution the Left not to box themselves in because if the public are offered a choice between sustained but pragmatic action on climate change or dogma that defies common-sense, they will opt for the former.
In terms of economics potential gains have been stated. If you're too pigheaded to comprehend what those gains are, for either Brexit or Sindy, then you deserve to lose the Union like you deservedly lost the EU.
Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, definitely. Huge, historic cultural icons. A club like Liverpool embodies the city. It is MORE important than Blenheim Palace. Protect it. List it. Allow private ownership, but with conditions, as we do with Grade 1 listed architectural treasures. Job sorted.
If the intent of these owners is leveraging and maximizing their returns, and not based on whats 'good for the game' then this is going to be the cycle. It will never be enough, as the principle of the current structure is that the big clubs will have to leave stuff on the table for the smaller clubs.
Shenhua "flower of Shanghai" (shen is the local shortening for the city.
They also are the two who haven't changed sponsor names for over 20 years.
So. Though they are also company names they aren't associated in the first place, with the company now, but with the football club.
R
We don;t mind the system as long as the system generally works. When it doesn't it really doesn't work.
Where will the Greens go now?
So to reiterate my earlier post, the one thing I don’t want is for the owners of the six clubs to be saved from themselves. They need to suffer, even if it is painful for the fans of those clubs.
Football is the asset, the individual clubs aren't.
And whatever you may think of the owners, they bought the clubs sort-of honestly. The fault lies with those who sold them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56800763
The Tories I hope will be in power until the end of this decade. By that time most carbon emissions will be removed from the UK and the rest will be in the planning stages of getting removed too. Cars will be electric, electricity will be green, the bulk of the work will be done. We need to find ways to offset agriculture and a solution to aviation and a few more things but we're getting there.
Once that happens what do the hairshirt extremists have left in their armoury? What is left to "overthrow capitalism" once the "emergency" has been resolved? By capitalism.
I'm no lawyer, but I recognise the principle of politicians probably shouldn't be trying to influence ongoing trials.
"I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
Let's hope the jury can do their job without further interference, at a time when emotions are running very high indeed across the country.
Football is part of the entertainment industry (and other things too). Every single important financial card is held by the individuals across the world who fund it by attending, buying stuff, paying to watch it and watching it by paying for it indirectly by being advertising's target. The tree will fall where the supporters want it to.
Huge vested interests (this new league is by no means the only grinding axe on the scene) will use their immense power to help organise and inform the mass of people who actually fund the game.
The rest of us should calm down.
They have a lot of easy targets ... 80 coal power stations, and one new one opened last year.
Keeping super league club fans interested in the former is essential to winning the battle.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article230525679/Soeder-akzeptiert-Entscheidung-des-CDU-Vorstands-Laschet-gewinnt-Machtkampf.html
You've got me, a rightwing capitalist sort, saying some things are much more important than money, and agreeing that private ownership, while crucial to society, does not give you limitless rights in business, just as it doesn't in property. Especially when the business is a cultural and social asset to the nation, which is the case with a major football club in England, and the English Premier League and pyramid system, and English football overall
Take what I'm offering. You might never make a Marxist of me, but I am ceding ground, happily.
If Liverpool embodied the City the club would need to be taken over by the government because the corruption in running it was so endemic and its performance was so rotten
Liverpool is a collapsing City, riven with entitlement, criminality, militancy and socialism from the days of Derek Hatton onwards, and that is one reason for the super league.
Liverpool the city is a vastly diminishing asset for the club whilst Liverpool's overseas fan bases in booming emerging markets are a vastly appreciating asset. And so the owners rightly want to move the club closer to where the fan base might be in the future. Who can blame them.
The domestic fans of these clubs want some kind of golden share in their club when they are the past of it and not the future.
Rangers FC could start three divisions down and essentially have 3 years of penury getting promoted each season before being back. That wouldn't be viable for 6 clubs, even if they were all successful ASAP it would take two clubs three year just to get into the old Fourth Division.
Today we have 6-8 clubs (with some very limited variation) competing for the PL title and CL places. Liverpool isn't about to be relegated so the whole "there must be relegation" is moot as far as those clubs are concerned (not 100% sure about the Arse, that said...).
So take them out and free up the league, CL, Europa League whatever.
You have 50,000 odd people with season tickets per club. The rest it doesn't matter too much if they are in L4 or Laos. A fan is a fan unless people are suggesting hierarchy of fans.
And craziest of all, you have the grotesque chaos of PB commentators - PB commentators - scuttling around advocating that football and private companies should be subject to govt whim.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56804007
But yes, you're right. The pendulum is swinging that unfettered rewards and globalism have a price, and sometimes that might be too high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Premier_League
In the 80s and 90s, when these clubs were both in the Vauxhall Conference*, the games between Stafford Rangers and Stalybridge Celtic were habitually the best attended matches of the season in that league, as thousands of Glaswegians headed south for the joy of hurling sectarian abuse at each other in slightly different surroundings and often outnumbering locals by some distance.
*As it will always be know regardless of the sponsor. Vauxhall have somehow managed perpetual publicity, albeit at the cost of association with a fifth-tier product.