Blatter "has concerns" over strength of Premiership

[Teasy]

"In a competition where two-thirds or three-quarters of the participants in the league play not to be first, but not to be relegated, there is something wrong,"

 

agree with that.

 

You agree that outside the best five teams in the league every other teams aim is simply not to be relegated?  That's just not true though.

[merlin]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

[indi]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

[madras]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

the problem for brown was that if the FSA didn't use a light touch the screaming that would have went on would have done him a load of damage. he took the risk of following everyone else.

 

PS the light touch by the regulating authorities stated at least in the 80's.

[merlin]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

[madras]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell).

 

as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ?

 

if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes.

 

thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

[merlin]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell).

 

as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ?

 

if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes.

 

thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

 

And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates..

All very well to complain when things go wrong....

 

...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ??

And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself.

 

Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as  you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS..

If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now.

Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect.

 

I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....!

 

[danswan]

Football?

[indi]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

 

I'd wager, you were probably being a condescending - not to mention tedious - cock before I was born and all. Congratulations on being old, I guess you need to take your victories where you can find them, so I'll let you have that one. Feel free to abuse me back once, then let's leave this thread to people who want to actually talk about the subject at hand, eh?

[James]

I know I started this by mentioning that the Lib Dems proposals would have effects on footballers, but this is a FOOTBALL thread. Perhaps you need to look at the Chat section Merlin, it would be good to have someone like you posting in there more

[Conjo]

The same goes for English players. English players aren't crap because of foreigners, they're crap because of their lack of ability, poor technique and/or rubbish coaching, this whole "foreign players coming over here taking our jobs" thing is bullshit. If you're not getting a game it's because you're not good enough, get off your fat highly-paid arse and get better at what you do. If you're not being signed by a big club in England it's because either you're not good enough, or you offer bad value for money. So get better and/or lower your pay demands, you could always go abroad yourself you know, stop being such an ignorant pussy, grow some balls, learn another language and go and experience a different culture. It's bollocks that the clubs don't support English talent, they want to buy English players and they'll even pay over the odds to do so, hugely over the odds in many cases! English players have it way too easy and that's made them lazy, they seem to think they're owed a career, f*** off, if normal people aren't why the f*** should you be!?! How many English players go abroad? Hardly any, they just sign for a lower league club, sulk and spout bitter bullshit about not being given a chance because of all the imports. Do foreign players do that? It doesn't seem so, does it. If they bring in a restriction on the number of foreigners in the Premiership it won't make England better, it's more likely to make them worse as players will have an even easier life and will become even more lazy. Not only that, but they'll be playing in a much weaker league and therefore things will have become worse for everyone.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8

[madras]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell).

 

as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ?

 

if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes.

 

thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

 

And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates..

All very well to complain when things go wrong....

 

...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ??

And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself.

 

Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as  you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS..

If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now.

Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect.

 

I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....!

 

lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced.

 

i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all.

 

if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two).

 

i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates.

 

thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives.

 

i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them)

[OzzieMandias]

The first chancellor to introduce monetarist policies was Denis Healey, FWIW.

[madras]

The first chancellor to introduce monetarist policies was Denis Healey, FWIW.

didn't work then either then.

[merlin]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell).

 

as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ?

 

if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes.

 

thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

 

And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates..

All very well to complain when things go wrong....

 

...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ??

And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself.

 

Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as  you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS..

If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now.

Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect.

 

I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....!

 

lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced.

 

i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all.

 

if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two).

 

i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates.

 

thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives.

 

i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them)

 

OK, you made some fair observations, but - why do you think Lamont HAD to introduce the 15% Rates ?

It wasn't his idea, it was Major's - Lamont was told to defend Sterling at ANY price to try to stop it falling out of the ERM, which Major, wrongly, had taken the UK into when he was Chancellor.

Speculators were simply making a fortune by exploiting this ludicrous policy(esp Soros), and eventually, Major had to admit defeat and withdraw Britain from the ERM...Lamont IMMEDIATELY reduced rates back to around 5% and said he was 'singing in the bath' after having done so...

The lower rates then enabled the UK to go on a growth cycle that left the country with the surplus I mentioned earlier when Blair took over.

[mrmojorisin75]

On a slightly unrelated note, the Lib Dems want a system in place that names everyone in the UK who earns a wage greater than the Prime Minister, and gives the exact figure.

 

Would be interesting if they ever got it put through on a football perspective.

 

why?

 

Because we'd find out who was getting paid what.

 

i mean why do the lib dems want that?

 

Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident.

 

Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...!

 

That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City.

 

Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts.

The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems..

I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market.

 

ALL politicians are corrupt.

 

Read and learn:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

 

I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?).

 

The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares...

I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK....

 

Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare....

 

Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT  out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes...

Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc..

This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result?

Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on...

Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc....

 

Want me to go on ?

 

there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell).

 

as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ?

 

if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes.

 

thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed.

 

And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates..

All very well to complain when things go wrong....

 

...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ??

And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself.

 

Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as  you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS..

If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now.

Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect.

 

I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....!

 

lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced.

 

i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all.

 

if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two).

 

i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates.

 

thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives.

 

i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them)

 

OK, you made some fair observations, but - why do you think Lamont HAD to introduce the 15% Rates ?

It wasn't his idea, it was Major's - Lamont was told to defend Sterling at ANY price to try to stop it falling out of the ERM, which Major, wrongly, had taken the UK into when he was Chancellor.

Speculators were simply making a fortune by exploiting this ludicrous policy(esp Soros), and eventually, Major had to admit defeat and withdraw Britain from the ERM...Lamont IMMEDIATELY reduced rates back to around 5% and said he was 'singing in the bath' after having done so...

The lower rates then enabled the UK to go on a growth cycle that left the country with the surplus I mentioned earlier when Blair took over.

 

this thread has descended into the worst thing i've seen since all those accountants were discussing player amortisation

 

needs locking or punting out of the football section

[merlin]

Maybe - but it wasn't me that introduced Socialism into the thread...

As`long as others are prepared to drop the subject, that's fine by me.

 

[madras]

Maybe - but it wasn't me that introduced Socialism into the thread...

As`long as others are prepared to drop the subject, that's fine by me.

 

i never brought it up either but a thread is like a river and i follow it to the sea.

[mrmojorisin75]

Maybe - but it wasn't me that introduced Socialism into the thread...

As`long as others are prepared to drop the subject, that's fine by me.

 

i never brought it up either but a thread is like a river and i follow it to the sea.

 

he he, i was just pissing about anyways, forgot the

[mrmojorisin75]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/mar/10/the-question-champions-league-premier

 

back to topic, good article this...

[Gallowgate Toon]

The only thing that needs to be changed about football is the ridiculous wages that players are on.

[Thespence]

The PL is fairer than most leagues with the TV cash getting spread around more fairly than other leagues. Blatter thinks the PL is predictable ha ha check out France, Scotland & Italy which all have far bigger problems with consecutive winners than the PL. There are a stash of former commie countries leagues that have been killed as a contests due to 1 (at push 2) clubs getting CL money.

[Guest LucaAltieri]

You can't hamstring the successful clubs and say to them: "You're too successful and we resent that so we're going to fuck you up", when the majority of the reason for the discrepancy between them and the rest is the failure of the rest, rather than anything underhand on behalf of the clubs at the top.

 

100% this.

 

Same can't be said about Serie A.

 

Maybe if they want to improve football as a whole they should start by getting rid of the ugliest aspects of it;

 

- Corruption (Italy)

- Agents

- Drug use (Italy)

- Racism (Spain, Poland, other backwards nations)

 

THEN maybe think about the F1-esque rule changes.

[Neil]

Blatter and Platini won't be pleased if all 4 English teams are in the CL quarters (again), I'd guess.

[madras]

Blatter and Platini won't be pleased if all 4 English teams are in the CL quarters (again), I'd guess.

i can see their point. they are in charge of EUROPEAN FOOTBALL and to have any 1 country dominate to such an extent isn't good for EUROPEAN FOOTBALL.

 

it's not just that we always recently seem to have a team in the final but are starting to dominate at the semi stage aswell.

 

for those xenophobes who complain that "they didn't whinge when the italians were dominating" they didn't dominate to the extent english clubs look like doing and they didn't whinge when english clubs dominated the european cup in the late 70's early 80's.