Whitey Grandad

Congratulations. The more you respect your body the more it will repay you.

I admit that the situation is disappointing but he'd need to be replaced before too long. If he were a horse he would not be far off becoming a few tins of glue.

I think the question is whether the punishment fits the crime.

She can if she wants to but it must be at a commercial rate. In most cases where there is a loan to the company no interest is paid. Sometimes there can be very complicated arrangements between holding companies and their subsidiaries, Top Shop and the like, but football company finance is notoriously intricate.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you get some money together and then offer to buy the club off her? Then you could put in all the investment that you wanted to. Anyway, anyone who invested would expect a return on that investment. It's her club, she can follow any policy that she likes, within the limits of the law and the football regulations.

I'd prefer a penalty goal. That means a goal, not a penalty. It would make the defender much more cautious about making a challenge.

I thought he did ok but I wasn't actually at the game.

I can't tell you that. All I can say is that I cannot see why we couldn't just implement the same rules as those other countries that don't send the money abroad. The EU just says that every citizen should get the same deal but of course children living abroad only really applies to non-British recipients. The amount in proved is out of all proportion to the political significance, some £28m a year, and HMRC consider that it would cost more to prevent the payments than it would save. Cameron did get an opt-out of ever closer union but that disappeared the morning after the vote.

To return to your reply for a moment (I have been off Internet for a few days). The payment of benefits varies from one member to another and it is Britain's choice to pay child benefit to children living abroad. We could have chosen not to. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/288 'Benefit Rules across the EU 7 Most countries do not pay child benefit in respect of children living outside of their territory. According to the EU’s Mutual Information System on Social Protection, in order to claim child benefit in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden the child must be resident in the territory.[3] In Ireland the rules stipulate that the child must be normally living with and being supported by the recipient however in practice this is not the case.[4] Only in the UK, Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands can child benefit be claimed for children who live in another EU state.' And a ruling where the ECJ has supported us: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

No no no, £350 million is never the gross cost. That amount is never handed over. We don't actually have a 'rebate', rather we pay a discounted figure.

Some very wishy-washy thinking in that link. Basically, if all the balls fall in the right slots we might be slightly better off in 15 years from now. Yeah, right.

I'd like to read that but there is a paywall. I maintained earlier that there was no journalistic examination of the contentions and that the preoccupation with 'balance' distorted the true picture. It seemed that everybody had to be given equal weight and airtime as though this were a parliamentary election.

Are you still quoting £350 million? That really is unbelievable in every sense of the word. The 'great majority of the British public' wouldn't have voted as they did if they knew what was in store for them. No difference apart from the drop in Sterling? It takes time for inflationary pressures to work through. Certainly any of the millions who went abroad over the past few weeks will have found their money doesn't go as far. I think this is the real crux of the vote. Many millions don't appreciate the benefits that we got through our membership of the EU and have been constantly misled by UKIP and the Daily Mail (other tabloids are available) and had voted over emotive non-quantifiable issues whereas a minority of us could see what the damage would be.

Of course I read the posts but I can also get to the essence, if any, of the meanings. Once again you refuse or are unable to give us the benefits of leaving. I heard everything that Brexiters proclaimed but I was not so gullible as to believe a word of any of it. There was no substance there and there is still no substance now. You won't give us any and neither will the main protagonists because now that they've finally caught the bus they don't know what to do with it nor what to do next. Please, pretty please, give us some substance to what you would like to get out of this. What trading situation you would like us to have with the EU or what laws you would like to see repealed. Do you really believe that we can have an EU trade deal as good as what we have now without the associated conditions on movement of labour and contributory payments? I don't know of any other country that does. Do you believe that we have the resources to negotiate this and at the same time negotiate deals with the rest of the world given the extremely limited resources that are available to us? The lunacy stems from believing that this can be done promptly and effectively without incurring the losses and damages that face us for years to come. Even if you believe that we will be better off in the long term we will never make up for the shortfall in the medium term. I, also, have given my reasons in previous posts as to why the Benefits claimed by the Brexiters will never materialise. Immigration has never been controlled before despite government efforts, there is no will to do so inside the Home Office. Otherwise why has immigration from the rest of the world been so high? Even if we could get EU immigration down to zero there would still be the hundreds of thousands coming annually from elsewhere. Sovereignty? This is a very fine and emotive word but actually means very little in today's world. We are signed up to many international commitments that restrict our freedom of operation and these won't change. Control of our borders? We can do that now - including arrivals from the EU despite what is claimed - but for some reason we don't actually bother. Hmm, what else? Economic? Apart from any perceived saving in contributions everything else is negative. Even these savings will be more than offset by the shortfall in economic growth and increases in bureaucratic complexity that have been dumped upon us. I ask again, please give us some specifics, some concrete examples of what you think we will be able to do in future. Don't keep harking back to what was said during the campaign because without specifics that was all 'empty rhetoric'.

Bigger letters = bigger lie. As someone famous once said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Or a mate of his: "...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily;"

Well none of that's going to happen so it wot be worth the cost, which will be significant. Anyway, if it wasn't about money why was that figure of £350m a week plastered all over the side of that bus in big letters?

No, you seem to have misunderstood my point. The share of our exports to the EU may be declining as a percentage of the overall figure but the actual amount is still increasing. This does not make exports to the EU of diminishing importance it actually makes them more important than they were before. And you still haven't defined any benefits from leaving the EU. There was a lot of empty rhetoric from the Brexiteers but that is all that it was. I am asking you personally what actual advantages you think there will be from our new situation. I have asked several leavers the same question and I have yet to receive even one example. Your economic strategy seems to exist of scrapping our existing trade deal with the largest trading bloc in the world right on our doorstep and then immediately trying to replace it with an inferior one whilst at the same time championing new deals with unspecified emerging economies in other parts of the world. Can you not see the economic lunacy in this approach?

You might be conflating percentages with amounts. Please remind me again, what are these 'other benefits?

It's not just me, is it? My quote about bad to disastrous came from an analysis of a few weeks ago. You can carry on living in your own dream world where wishful thinking conquers all but reality has bigger teeth and bites deeper.

Yes it will. Everything depends on where we end up with access to the Single Market. Britain has done very well out of the EU since this market was established and anything less than the free unfettered access that we enjoy at present will eat into that 40%. The possible outcomes range from bad to very bad to disastrous. The people that deal in these matters know this which is why they are upset about it. There is no upside to any aspect of this, no 'bright side of life', no positives. Why anyone should feel the need to gloat over our situation is beyond me.

Overall it's bad. What's more important is that changes in the FTSE should be considered in conjunction with the $ rate.

All things being equal, FTSE going up is good. £ dropping in value is bad and trumps FTSE

It does, doesn't it?

All very true. And don't forget that the Corporates want to offer their guests the chance to see their heroes from Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and so on and we keep giving these teams a thrashing so it's not surprising that demand is low

Twenty years ago or so the average Premier League salary was £1.5m (Might have been 15 years, around MLT'S time anyway)