BTRFTG

Data tells nothing. Interpretation of data, that's of interest but is, of course, subjective. It's also untrue to assume any difference in year to baseline is attributable to an identified factor. It might be, might not be. Take suicide. Read the press and you'd think there was an epidemic, that there must be a reason for all the tragic stories we daily encounter (and tragic they most certainly are.) Yet in truth the suicide rate is pretty much at an all time low, an 80% reduction on what was observed in Victorian Britain and they didn't have Covid. Or Cancer, there is an epidemic of that but it's primary cause in most cases is something whose identification really doesn't help - we live longer, far longer than biologically we've evolved to last. On the one hand that's a brilliant thing, but comes quid pro quo with an inevitable downside. If you look at improvements in healthcare, nutrition and lifestyle over the past 50 years there's an uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn. For the past few decades, statistically at least, not enough of us have been dying. In the UK that's been running at around 180-200k deaths avoided each year. Problem being, we're not immortal and inevitably, even if we do great things, the death rate must and will increase. It's how such things work.

You bizarrely conflate wealth and income as well as UK and international jurisdiction, but as the running costs of the NHS must be met by Direct UK taxes (for obvious reasons,) let's stick to those. 41% of adults pay nothing in Income/NI (that's around 23.1m who don't presently care about tax take as it doesn't impact them.) They include the likes of me, somebody who's paid a fortune in tax over the years but who in taking a sabbatical these past two years before retiring hasn't paid direct tax to the Chancellor during that period; Of those contributing the bottom 50% contribute 9.3% of the total take; The next 40% contribute 29.9% of the take; The 90-99th centiles contribute 31.6% of the take; The top 1% earners, they contribute 29.2% - less than half of one percent of the UK population pays nearly a third of income and NI. Few are billionaire oligarchs as like our own Chairman it's all too easy to move directly taxed wealth from these shores. Of course elections matter not to them as they can't vote anyway. Of that top 1% only one quarter of their income comes from dividends and defined benefits, so raising rates, as historically proven, doesn't proportionally raise monies raised. So the NHS' running costs are mostly paid for by a small subset of middle and higher income earners, like many on this forum. The problem being marginalise them further and there's no incentive to pay tax at all. Take the wealthy retired, those who've exceeded their lifetime allowances (that includes many long serving public sector workers, hence the mass exodus of doctors, teachers and Civil Servants in their late 50s.) Rather than crystalise money purchase assets which would see somewhere between 95-100% of that asset go to the Chancellor, they'll leave where they are, not touch them, leave to their kids if dead before 75, or beyond IHT at kids marginal rates thereafter. The problem for Governments, even those who shout loudly in opposition, is they know that ordinary folks know it's them who'll be picking up the tab, not somebody who's fled the country taking their assets with them, or some far flung oligarch sipping cocktails in the BVI. Ever was thus and that's why stated voting intention and that which happens in the booth rarely accord.

Save all that costs and as elections have shown for decades the only thing that really matters to folks is the bottom line in their pockets. Everybody demands a better health service, very few are prepared to cough up the sums required (which presently would be around £780 for every man woman and child each year just to stand still.) And no, there isn't a mythical pot of super wealthy to pick up the pain. They should teach the tax/pub analogy such kids leaving school understand how the tax system operates.

As with the security checks (sic) any review of NHS apps or negative covid tests is utterly meaningless given there's no way of tying the data to the individual presenting. Best thing they might do is to enforce mandatory face coverings in stadia, perhaps those who claim exemption should be placed in their own section of stand, then enforce wearing throughout. No covering = ejection. Close the concourses and concessions for food and beverage. At least then you'll aim to control the spread of the virus.

Clubs ceased to be 'heritage assets' (sic) decades ago. If fans are so concerned there's nothing to stop them buying and running clubs, save in most cases they've neither the wherewithal or nous. Fans want their cake and eat it, somebody else to pick up the tab for their passion, somebody else to hold own the risk. Fans need to get real, but fans will never, ever take realism over results. Good luck with defining whatever 'abuse of assets' might be, but once you have quite how criminal penalties will benefit such 'heritage assets' and their fans is, I fear, a constitutional mystery?

As we: Aren't at home; Winning 3-0; Have less that 5 mins to play; ..why would he even be considered?

Let's just a few things clear: If you're of the persuasion to not have an inoculation because......(insert excuse here other than that provided for sound reason by a medical professional)... it's absolutely nothing to do with that excuse and everything to do with the fact you're little more than a functioning amoeba, thick as pig shit, holding little or no intellectual capacity. And whilst in the bigger scheme you aren't a danger to yourselves (for what loss might you be,) you are to the wider community and thus you deserve to be marginalised. Maintain your position by all means but be aware you wear your stupidity as a badge of faux honour. Note, too, that the vast majority of folks who die have recently seen or been under the care of a medical professional. So using your iatrogenic logic next time you feel unwell, suffer worrying symptoms or through accident require emergency assistance, do us and yourselves a favour and steer well clear of informed and educated help. You know they don't have your best interests at heart, there's no infallible proof they'll be able to help (else why do folks keep dying) so, as with vaccines, take your own chances. Leave getting ill as a result of undertaking Stage One drug trials whilst appreciating the wider human benefits they deliver to the likes of me. Promise us that, won't you? If you're of the persuasion that wearing a face mask or showing a vaccine passport is an imposition to which you should not be subject, be aware most think it reasonable that Her Majesty should not provide you the convenience of her having sorted out arrangements for your free passage beyond these shores, that you should no longer be facilitated to quaff foul keg beers in Benidorm or contract sexually transmitted diseases in Ayia Napa. Those things you can arrange yourself in gutteral discussions with foreign powers (not I suspect you'd remotely know where to start.) As Law prescribes your conscience, freedom and security may be excused as 'absolute human rights'. It also prescribes that your ridicule, ostracization and marginalization are permissible should you not conform to those 'conditional rights' you desire to ignore.

Spending vast sums on players isn't an issue provided you buy the right ones, just ask Man City. Now the best part of £13m on Ashley Williams days before his 32nd birthday or £30m+ on Bollasie, that's 'Ashton in The Premier' levels of squander.....

Trains ran every day until the early 60s, hence my old man recalling the home and away double headers of yore played Xmas and Boxing Day, including one huge turnaround in fortune at Plymouth, I believe.

There are no trains Boxing Day.....

When buying the stadium ownership holding doesn't that also trigger an SDLT liability circa £2.75m? Also, I thought HMRC claimed they were owed £29.3m. If so, that's someway off what's left having paid off the preferential debt.

Massengo aside there's sod all value in that lot....

Forget transfer fees alone and ask instead which players when signed incurred liabilities in excess of £1m? Ashton alone signed well over 50 of them, most whose names you've (rightly) long since forgotten....

Once spent an afternoon near him and his brother Steve watching the same groups around Celtic Manor. Arrogant sod who loves the sound of his own voice.

Only when the sun's out.....

The Thug has never been 'all there', hence his criminal record as long as The Gas have been staring upwards at us in the league.....

Depends who is throwing the stones? If it was City's forwards the idiot would die of dehydration.....

Well from my vantage in the Dolman it looks very much like a rectangular opening through the Lansdown. Not bothered how you describe it other than 'a kicking' is fine by me.

Because his stupidity and selfishness disrupted the game. Idiots who go on the pitch should be given short shrift, preferably with a baton.

Don't care who he was, only that I hope he got a very severe kicking when taken down the tunnel....

Solid if not spectacular, but it's 3 points so who cares (save I think it likely they'll get annuled along with the over chippy & increasingly loathsome Rams.) Had we a striker we'd have won by 3. Derby were pants. Expensive pants at that.

Testing? Amazon started PL broadcasts in 2019. It's also not competition to the others, rather as Scudamore realised it's a very useful alternate broadcast outlet. Amazon got games when BT needed to downsize having realised they'd paid far over the odds for their rights and few decided switching to BT was worth it. Sky does and will continue to drive the viewing numbers in the UK. Without them Premier rights aren't worth half as much as few will subscribe to Prime just for their TV channel. It's a mix that works for both Premier and consumer. Much as why NFL flogged games to Nickelodeon - now there's a tie-up!

Why would they want to block if both clubs, fans and, most importantly, TV viewing figures demand it? We already know the gulf in Premier to Championship and it's been demonstrated the only way to break into the top flight and stay there is to flit between the leagues for a few seasons. Without PPs there's insufficient scope to improve a promoted squad to be remotely competitive at the higher level. That's why lesser Premier players are OK when having to drop down a playing level as their wages don't. It's already the case that promoted teams have become whipping boys and removal of PP will only make that worse. A few seasons down the line it'll be the case of whether or not clubs will pick up a point all season, games being uncompetitive exhibitions and few will pay to watch that. If that's a threat to Premier income, all will act swiftly to protect. We already have some who say they prefer to watch their team playing competitive fixtures in the Championship than getting thrashed week in, week out. Further exacerbate the divide and we'll start toward the continental model of having 'feeder' clubs and I've no desire to support Bristol City (In association with Brighton & Hove Albion) FC.

In the 'land of the free' look at how ultra tight, protectionist legislation keeps professional sport competitive, promoted, entertaining and participated to the n'th degree, all delivering wealth in abundance to players and owners alike. As morally corrupt as it sounds, it works. Bosman has much to answer for.....

? Aldi's competitive advantage comes from them paying suppliers far quicker than their competitors. If everything was cash only for all supermarkets that advantage would quickly erode. With average UK indebtedness (excluding mortgages) at £32k per adult and adopting your 'cash first' proposal most of the population would starve within weeks. In football (not sure how anybody could afford to go if unable to eat,) the market would also be miniscule as with nearly all clubs in debt few could buy players. Prices would plummet, few transfers concluded, little circulation of funds and all to the advantage of those cash rich outfits who'd lever their advantage.