buctootim

The problem is one of supply. Build more houses and rents / purchase prices will fall. Everyone will benefit except property speculators.

Did your tutors email come from the college /university email account with job title etc ? - eg jbloggs@southampton.ac.uk

Its one big long slogan though Dune. Lots of motherhood and apple stuff but zero content or proposals.

The sudden car crash has been avoided and and the slow one continues.

For 'shambles' read 'taking reasonable steps to ensure people are entitled to the concessions they are claiming for'. Its a pain in the arse for people who are genuinely claiming concessions but it made necessary by the ****s who arent. "A copy of your enrolment letter or an official College document confirming your continuation on your course" isnt unreasonable imo.

There clearly is abuse and for some people not working and being on benefits is a way of life. The real problem though is how to carrot / stick people into working and not having children they cant support whilst ensuring that children they already have are decently fed, educated and grow up filled with aspirations so that the cycle of dependency is broken and not perpetuated. Thats the bit no-one has ever really found an answer to.

If someone can just swap Goldstone for Fratton, 1997 for 2013 and Archer for Chanrai then I think we're almost there.

Women seem to do well on a veggie diet - generally slimmer and healthier looking. Men not so much though - unless they really know how to cook. It seems to be something to do with the need for protein.

That thinks for himself and doesnt go along with the negative fashion on here? yep.

But fewer doctors. Tax avoidance is a job creation scheme for accountants we could do without.

Was surprised to learn Sir Alf paid for elocution lessons to get rid of his strong cockney acccent, and the Geordie player talking about seemed to accept that having an accent would hold you back in life, even in in football. Thank God those days are gone (or going).

Interesting. I do quite like the programme but the enthusiasm always seemed a bit synthetic and Tony Robinson irritates too.

Bummer Wealthy investors including Sir Alex Ferguson, Sven-Göran Eriksson and a host of sports stars and City figures could be liable for huge individual tax bills after an attempt to reduce their liabilities backfired. The 289 investors in Eclipse 35, a film partnership ruled to be an “aggressive” tax avoidance scheme by a tax tribunal in April, could end up paying several times more than the total of £117m tax they sought to avoid as the Revenue & Customs examines the large bank loans they took on to participate in the scheme. The investors put £50m of their own capital into the scheme, conceived by Future Capital Partners, and borrowed £790m from Barclays Bank to buy the film distribution rights to two Disney films, offsetting the interest charged against income tax. Disney agreed to lease the rights back from investors in return for an annual payment spread over 20 years. However, the Revenue told the Financial Times this week that it was treating the “sub-licensing” payments as income and liable for tax, meaning investors stand to receive tax bills far greater than the income tax they originally tried to avoid. The Revenue confirmed that it was in the process of sending tax demands to UK-based Eclipse partners, levied on the millions of pounds of income earned and backdated to 2007 when it began operating. “They will be receiving tax bills for the income from the partnership, backdated. It is as if the scheme never existed,” it said. One law firm said some investors could face “financial ruin”. At least three investors have already contacted lawyers to see if they can sue financial advisers for negligence over Eclipse 35. Future Capital Partners, which conceived the scheme, has filed an appeal, but said it was up to investors to decide whether to pursue it. Thousands of participants in similar film investments could also be affected, as the Revenue assesses them in the wake of its victory. Baljinder Boparan, an investor in Eclipse 35 and wife of Ranjit Boparan, the owner of the Two Sisters food group, said she would end up paying more tax than she had invested. Her spokesman said she was consulting lawyers. “It has gone horribly wrong,” said Kit Sorrell, senior professional negligence partner at Pannone, the Manchester law firm. “Investors will be required to pay income tax on ‘income’ they have never received. He is acting for two people who claim that they were not advised that if the Revenue challenged the scheme they could be liable for tax on its income. “For many investors, this enormous liability will come as an absolute shock and could lead to financial ruin. Many aren’t yet aware that this might happen to them,” Mr Sorrell said. Other investors in Eclipse 35 included Lance Uggla, chief executive of Markit, the research company; David Casterton, chief executive for London and Emea of ICAP, the interdealer broker; Richard Baker, the chairman of DFS, the furniture retailer; Philippa Rose, founder of a City headhunter; and dozens of middle-ranking City bankers. All declined to comment. Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, declined to comment and Mr Eriksson, the former England football manager, could not be reached for comment. Several firms of wealth advisers marketed the scheme, and clients paid them fees of up to £50,000 a time, Mr Sorrell said. Future Capital said it stood behind the investment. “We now have a situation where because of the current economic environment, HMRC [the Revenue] and latterly the government are challenging what are both legally structured and commercial investments,” it said.

That article is about the total amount of tax paid by people on the 50% band. It says nothing about the people paying artifically low rates by use of employment benefit trusts, loan backs or some other scheme / scam. I'm surprised you aren't angry about avoidance Whitey. Its you and me - the middle - who are paying more tax because the wealthy and immoral are avoiding it - and it is immoral. Paying 1% on earnings of £1m pa equals £10,000pa - less than somebody trying to raise a family on £35,000pa

Nope. Taking a hypothetical example I gave three pages ago, presenting that as my views, ignoring all the context and additional info given subsequently, and asking faux naive questions - thats trolling. A particularly pointless form of it as well. Ffs man, you're in your late 30's still trying to play to the imaginary gallery. Its embarassing.

Aah you've gone back to to trolling, pity. The info is out there. Read it or not, its up to you.

Around 9 million copies of paid for morning newspapers sold each day and another 1.5 million evening. Readership is around 50% higher than circulation - so around 16 million each day. Not exactly "hardly anyone"

It all depends on what the intial price of a ticket is set at. If the club were routinely seeing ticket prices reduce the near to the game it got it would clearly have a problem because that would **** fans off and deter early purchase - the opposite of what they want. 1. Fans would be ****ed off if they routinely lost out. If sometimes they got cheap tickets and sometimes paid over the odds things would average out. People already accept it for flights and hotels. 2. What you are saying is the opposite of a successful dynamic pricing model. Mostly early purchases equals cheaper tickets. 3. Im not exactly sure how the baseball clubs cover that - it appears to be some kind of guarantee that they wouldnt lose out over the season. 4. Because its a new idea and FL rules on revenue sharing wouldnt currently allow it. I'll bet you some clubs are looking at the experiment closely though.

Tbh its the fingers in the ears stuff, refusal to consider that things can change which I find stupid. There is also a huge difference between what I personally think is a good thing and what I think is likely to happen. The St Louis Cardinals and San Francisco Giants are two major league baseball teams. They get around 40,000 people per game - directly comparable to the PL clubs. They are trialling dynamic pricing and it seems to be working for them. If it does work (ie increases revenue) then comparable clubs around the world will be seriously considering it. On balance I think its more likely than not to be common in the prem within 10 years. Read the articles or google it. You dont have to believe a random on a message board - big clubs are doing it now and serious publications are discussing it. Attempting to take the **** out of me me for raising it as a live issue (not saying you are specifically) simply makes the poster look dim and uninformed, not me. http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/01/06/dynamic-pricing-the-future-of-ticket-pricing-in-sports/ http://www.thebusinessofsports.com/2011/10/25/recap-of-mlb-dynamic-pricing-in-2011/ http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clar...riety-c/nGGR3/

Ive never said we need a bigger stadium - I dont think we do if you apply simple economics of how to make most money this season and next. If however you want to grow the club you MIGHT build a larger stadium knowing you might have to take a reduced average ticket price in the early years. Since the club clearly is considering expanding SMS I dont see anything wrong with discussing how that might be made to work. One thing dynamic pricing does do is help you fill the stadium (ignoring yield for the moment). I can actually see that as a being a very attractive feature for PL who are marketing themselves to a global tv audience as the most successful desirable league in the world. That image is harder to sell if some of your member clubs are showing up on tv in China / Middle east etc playing in to 20,000 people in 60% full grounds.

Dunno. I think a lot of it is enjoying a cyber ruck in the close season. Its much less uncomfortable and inconvenient than the real thing for those well past their early 20s.

Exactly. Works the other way too. My brother used to live in Finsbury park and we would regularly go to Arsenal matches a few times a season if I was up in London for the weekend and Saints werent playing.

Its the way the game has gone generally though. From tribal predominantly male working class passion driven supporters to a more family oriented leisure activity. Some might regret the change - but thats where the bigger attendances and money is.

Nutshell. There are many things the club can do to increase average attendance very quickly to c34-38,000 if Saints are only moderately successful. Higher than that might be possible over time. Im not sure why some even try to dispute it given its been done before. The average attendance in the early 1980s was around 18,000 in a 24,000 capacity Dell but had nearly doubled to 30,000 by 2003. Maybe its because much of the additional support may come from corporates, women, kids, middle classes that there is so much opposition to the possibility of expansion and finger in the ear stuff. I suspect a lot of it is to do with macho posturing by a few aging fans who like to misremember how football used to be a working mans game and they regularly 'took' this pub or that end - when in reality it was usually handbags and a nice little choreographed chant and run routine.

Good call