Jump to content

BTRFTG

Members
  • Posts

    3848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

BTRFTG last won the day on December 16 2021

BTRFTG had the most liked content!

Reputation

4567

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Blackheath

Recent Profile Visitors

5609 profile views
  1. Semenyo's 1 in 9 record doesn't lie and last night's performance was as per. His first four touches were all miscontrolled and things didn't improve afterwards. Easily marshalled and muscled off the ball, like Weimann, Scott and Sykes he's forever looking to the officials for help neither deserved nor awarded. Given the decent chances that came his way he again squandered them high and wide, adjusting socks and boots afterwards attempting to shift blame to his equipment. His second half run into the box, left to right toward (his) right hand post to meet good quality, pacy ball in from the right - any striker has two options: inside of right foot/outside of left. Semenyo, in choosing the inside of his left foot served only to send the ball back in the direction from whence it came. Such judgement is why he's a 1 in 9. Like Weimann, for somebody who supposedly puts a shift in, he's as lazy as hell in getting himself back into an onside position. Of Weimann, last night he was wholly anonymous save for his usual first minute argument with the referee (who appeared to put him in his place,) and his glaring misses, albeit one if not both were miles offside. City struggle to retain possession as it is so its highly frustrating to cede dead ball simply because players can't be arsed to get and stay onside. Whatever anybody offers for Semenyo (should they be silly enough to make an offer,) we should take it for simple reason he's sub-Championship material.
  2. As all decent folks would, I wish him well in his recovery and recuperation.
  3. Or in City's case not remotely proficient.... I think that's why City fans have a issue with teams who are.
  4. And the best of Season's Greetings to you, fellow supporter... I very much miss tradition but as there are no longer cold, Boxing Day terraces on which to stand with mates (a tradition removed by so-called football supporters themselves, so much for engagement,) replacing the long trek with the Long Walk Hurdle and match on TV, in front of fire and enjoyed with quaff wouldn't be considered backwards progress in some quarters. Personally, I'd love to see football and its money expunged from television (and in doing so football itself,) if you want to see a game then go to it with football funded through supporters. But that's pure fantasy.
  5. Again we love to blame the officials but as Disraeli reminded statistics aren't always to be trusted. In an average football match the ball is in play for just over an hour. Its in play longer in the first half than second. Segment by 5 minute periods and, unsurprisingly, the ball remains in play less the later the game progresses. Note neither Law 15 nor 16 state the maximum time allowed for play to restart. 15 secs is standard but officials tend not to act until its double that. So of the 4 1/2 minutes lost in additional time it only requires 9 incidents to occur; foul, throw-in, corner, goal kick or substitution, which is pretty much par for the course as gamblers in those markets will attest. And whilst we might look to blame Stoke the likes of Semenyo, Sykes & Weimann didn't exactly do their best to control and keep the ball in play.
  6. The only thing to take from that article is VAR MUST be scrapped. So they reviewed many hundreds of incidents only to discover the officials erred on a dozen occasions. Half when (and despite all the technology,) they incorrectly made a decision, balanced by half where they should have acted yet didn't.
  7. The sum total of which appears to be that we agree the best run businesses have extensive stakeholder engagement, yet disagree that nothing has been demonstrated as to why football requires regulation? If it does, I'd argue that extends only so far as trying to bring a degree of normalcy back its business model and that wouldn't last two seconds in the courts, if implemented. It would likely have fans up in arms as the best thing to happen would be for a raft of clubs to go bust, quickly, thus forcing football and player, fans and owners demands into a major restructure. The very fact the review is focused on the league element (not grassroots) shows its essentially a protectionist agenda. Let's keep what we've always had the way we've had it. Why? The horse has bolted. Fans need to stop conflating today's football with that of yore, they're wholly unrelated. If fans choose to invest their emotion in businesses that's up to them, but football is not an exception and it doesn't give them a mandate to call shots they're not prepared to fund. Fans can either pay for that they unreasonably demand else, as they are free to do, walk away and invest their energies elsewhere.
  8. As you ask we'd say we're glad we didn't bother to drive down simply to fill our paid for seats and there were one or two positive passages of play first half, save overall the game was further example of the squad we have not being good enough (and that includes some who folks think superstars in the making and who, God willing, some mugs will offer stupid money for during the upcoming window.) We again conceded two unnecessary, wholly avoidable goals. But we do that most weeks so presume those on the park either don't consider them unavoidable else lack talent to influence the game. (To the quick, it's the latter.) Folks love to blame the officials, who weren't great , but weren't that bad and were not the reason we lost. I'm sure Stoke fans rate them awful too for allowing the likes of Weimann, Scott & Semenyo to remain on the park despite their non-stop cheating. Funny old game....
  9. Exactly. I could relate some very telling truths about the 'banking crisis' and why it arose in the way it did. Its decades before the paperwork is no longer embargoed but future generations will learn how bankers (boo, hiss,) cautioned governments (boo, hiss,) to reign in unsustainable cheap credit but were firmly put in their place by the likes of Blair who ensured, should the banks attempt to stop the feel-good factor he demanded, his government would flood the market with cheap money. On my estate as a kid there was no 'credit', only the cautioned against 'Never, Never.' Named for the simple reason you'll never own it nor ever stop paying for it. As with your jeans, my folks and their peers insisted you wanted something, you waited, saved, and only then bought it. The so called 'necessities' of modern life, private vehicles, holidays, multimedia entertainment & communications devices were rare as as rocking-horse for the simple reason they weren't necessary at all. You had them once you could afford them and only then. Folks today love to conflate criticism of the present welfare state and alleged poorest with attacks on the poor. I was brought up to support those in need. The young, infirm and elderly UNABLE to help themselves. I still hold that to be true today. That's a million miles from supporting those for whom state sponsorship is seen as a rightful lifestyle. Its for that reason I fully support a new class of citizen, my kids, their kids and just about anybody under the age of 40. Why the hell should they be burdened with others ever-increasing, unsustainable debts simply because we've areas of this nation where multiple generations have never worked nor have any inclination of working. Not taking personal responsibility, no thought for others, the 'what's in it for me' generations. There's also the biggie few talk about. The amount of money 'lost' by 'the poorest' to the darker side of the economy. On my estate there was one bloke who dabbled in drugs. If he came into the boozer he was given a royal kicking. If you wanted drugs you went into town. Last time I was there (for a wake,) there were underage girls (some grandchildren of kids I'd grown up with,) offering all sorts of 'services' (sic) around the back of the same boozer for next to nothing. All to service their and their 'boyfriends' habits. Plenty of unemployed blokes in the bar with pocketfuls of folding the likes usually reserved only for racecourses. But I'm also old enough to have known the acquaintance of plenty of addicts, many now dead, who would have attested addiction is nothing like that folks now love to describe. That of an unavoidable, lifestyle. You have to work bloody hard to become an addict, its not something you fall into overnight, by chance. And for that reason there is, inevitably, a degree of personal responsibility to be taken. But I'm a man out of time and few think personal responsibility and social duty merit worthy traits these days.
  10. Or perchance personal failing? If folks who had less in my youth didn't go hungry why are they hungry now? I could cite dozens of examples, but these days its easier to point fingers of blame, easier to conflate that one demands one needs with that one actually needs. Go apply your 'market failure' theory to the rank of shops where I grew up. Odd the cheap and basic suppliers of my youth were replaced by expensive "value added' suppliers. They were replaced because largely potless punters demanded them. No longer buying spuds by the sack, rather spending half as much on one bag of chips. As a kid food & shelter took precedence over private transport, telecommunications, consumer goods & holidays. Daps were cheap, black and without branded logo, the latter of no functional consequence. Not so that witnessed in BS13 food bank queues these days.
  11. Long post so I'll just highlight a few points of debate: 'Football is different as you can't buy out your competitors...' : Domestically with EPPP whilst one cannot buy a competing entity one may buy all the talented resource that might allow that entity to compete and through such starvation deplete competition. Matters not the uncompetitive entities themselves took monies to remove competition. Internationally, 'City Group' demonstates how international competition is made less competitive and how such advantage may he used to remove competition domestically. You later acknowledge this point suggesting 'big clubs' use 'smaller clubs' to source talent. Whilst they may do so under the present status quo, they don't need to. Tangentially we're agreed on your second point about fixed geographic location, though I think you are incorrect in suggesting clubs or businesses forever hold fixed locations. As I highlighted, its fans who hold power and if they don't accept clubs/businesses moving, the name and reputation never relocates though the club/business might (says he forever a Cleveland Brown.) NB there are plenty of football clubs in existence who've crossed significant geographic Rubicons, two on my own doorstep in respect of Arsenal & Millwall. Should 'heritage' place them back from whence they came? Independence: fans have/had an opportunity to put monies where their mouths are, but don't (see York City again this week.) If one demands a say in the legal running of an entity, in managing its risk and liability, in its legal operation, one MUST be prepared to underwrite that responsibility, IN FULL. Non-shareholding fans CHOOSE to pay to support their clubs, hence are important stakeholders. But those fans may walk away tomorrow, without care or liability and that costs them nothing, unlike those for whom the bills will still have to be paid. NB City fans cover less than 20% of annual running costs. In recent years fans of other clubs, though subscriptions, grants and transfer fees they've helped fund have contributed more to City than City's own supporters. What stakeholder value should they be assigned - greater than City's own fans? In respect of diversity why should an ex-player be on the board? What might they know of business? There are plenty of examples of clubs who've successfully appointed ex-players to boards. Mostly they've been appointed having made something of themselves in business or political debate. They've been appointed on merit, not because they once played football. I forget the stats about the percentage of ex-pros going bankrupt once their careers are over, save its a very high number. Is it for the best those who can't run their own lives run clubs, or at least until bankruptcy disbars them? Should reglation mandate such folly? There are City fans who are already very successful, high-profile NEDs & board directors (I sit next to one such each week,) but you forget the problem with football is were they to bring their skills and acumen to the footballing boardroom their natural instinct, to protect shareholders, suppliers, and wider stakeholders, would be to pretty much shut up shop immediately. City exist because of the loophole that SL has agreed to lose £750k each week which football allows him to convert to stock and which, ultimately, will be written off. If he or his kind weren't in absolute control and were I appointed to City's board tomorrow, my first duty as director (as legally obligated,) would be to push for the non-viable business to enter administration. It's interesting you believe a supposed 'independent' regulator would have no commercial say, yet, de facto, the proposal to increase regulation the higher the licence holder's league status ( and with it turnover and capital resource,) appears at odds. If you took money out of the equation what footballing difference Man City and Bradford City? Wouldn't they be one and the same, historic clubs, fans, safety requirements et al? What is the additional regulation unless its linked to power generated from £ signs? Heritage assets, still no suggestion as to what they are and when they should be baselined? Your Brentford example is interesting. As previous, I spent an entertaining afternoon with one of their board members (himself a very successful sports administrator, businessman, NED et al.) As he explained at the time (the ground was yet to be completed,) Brentford needed improved facilities to survive and were sitting on a valuable asset, prime for redevelopment with which the local authority were very supportive. Their problem, whilst they weren't against moving farther afield, was finding a site. Land, such as that they were selling, was at a premium and wasn't best placed to gain necessary permissions as residents (as City discovered,) don't want football stadia in their locale. Brentford ended up where they are because the searches conducted showed it was the only affordable plot of land with local planning support available. The Board themselves, like most casual observers, first concluded ' you'll never squeeze a stadium in there', then when shown one could it followed, 'but you'll never get crowds into and from that space safely.' It took several iterations to show what could be made to work, all of which were sub-optimal to what they wanted, but was the only option open to them. Heritage and location, as you define, were chance benefits. I've no issue with stakeholders being given statutory powers, provided they also accept statutory liabilities and undertakings. You can't have one without the other. Through regulation that isn't on the cards.
  12. I'd counter those who understand economics aren't in massive debt, or need of food banks or shelter because they know how to manage things for themselves. Must be I was lucky enough to grow up in an era and area full of economics experts, for despite BS13 residents not having a proverbial to proverbial in no kid I grew up with went hungry, nor undressed, nor without a roof over their head. Odd that, given 50 years ago residents comparatively had less disposable income than their equivalent today. If this nation is 'wealthy', as you say, how come so many claim to be needy and why does the government have to bail out many tens of millions who claim to be struggling with the basics? How come its infrastructure and public services are falling apart despite tax take being at historically high levels?
  13. The problem with emotive issues such as sustainability is folks are prone to cite the benefits whilst conveniently ignoring that which diminishes their argument. Clearly, fewer damaging emissions emerge from EVs than from petrol cars, but that has to be discounted by emissions arising from production and distribution of electricity. Not simply volume based, but EV damaging emissions in production are considerably greater than for conventional vehicles. There's also emerging evidence that lifespan of batteries and EV components are far shorter than for conventional vehicles. Then there's the biggie. Very few EVs, in particular their batteries, are recycled for reason that's a very expensive, energy consuming process. They're landfill, so have a massive polluting impact, if not immediate carbon footprint, which is ignored. You'll often see the manufacturers and green groups publish data that's based on comparatively short lifecycles (4 years is common,) as this gets around the built in senescence of EV. They'll also claim guff such as 92% of EU citizens have access to 100% renewable charging (as if renewable power is separately distributed.) EVs are more expensive upfront, charging point installations can be expensive and without common standards may need to be changed with the car (needless and inefficient.) So I use the term 'faux green' and will explain why. As Estates Director for a government agency sustainability reporting fell under my remit. Talk about have to pull the wool to suit ministerial agenda. Under one harebrained scheme I opened 68 offices around the UK. One was Objective One, EU funded. Brand new, never occupied, pride of the local Green(ish) Authority, geothermally and solar powered. I fitted it out. Although it had the lowest power consumption of any of the 68 offices, it had by far the highest functional carbon footprint. How? Well the geothermal and solar interfaces never worked for more than a day or so at a time. The engineer (I think there only was one specialist,) attended on a monthly rota when called out as they were based in Aberdeen (the office was in Cornwall.) Spares, (required each visit but only once the problem was identified the previous month) came from all over the globe. So in addition to maintaining an unusable office I had to source alternate, temporary, inefficient accommodation for staffs and public elsewhere. After a year we walked away, writing off the very expensive install, picking up huge dilapidations, and having to fit-out a replacement, conventionally powered office nearby. Immediate 'in pocket' saving similarly isn't necessarily as advantageous as might first appear (that's why employers offer such schemes.) One assumes you've a leased EV through salary sacrifice. If so, I'd expect the term of the lease for renewal to be shorter than one might otherwise keep a vehicle if purchased. Like anything that's leased you'll keep getting upgrades but lifecycle like-for-like is likely to be far more expensive than buy, keep and use until its no longer functional. (My kids laugh at my 'ancient' if now ultra cheap to run mobile.) As for salary sacrifice: any benefit has to be discounted by losses in respect of future pay increases, employer pension contributions, sick or redundancy pay et al. It isn't as cut and dried as is often cited.
  14. Do keep up, stop being so BS3centric and don't just limit it to midweek. Several 'away' train fixtures were driven this year (despite having purchased train tickets) - read the press and you'll understand why. Get back to London by train post a midweek at AG, not if you don't wish to leave halfway through the second half. Many of those 'two hour' trips fail to account for 'ground to station' far end, nor arriving back at TM when there's no option other than to call Danny Devito. Neither Brum nor Luton are what I'd call 'adjacent' stations. But in answer to your question: midweeks should be decided not by distance but by quality of boozer. In which case Luton's forever midweek.
×
×
  • Create New...