Jump to content


Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

316 Excellent

About LondonOwl313

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

757 profile views
  1. That was my first game too, April 1996. Think it was 5-2 though... it's this one: https://www.skysports.com/football/sheff-wed-vs-everton/276950
  2. Well we aren't the only club to have taken advantage of this loophole. It's allowed within the rules... they can't then punish us for complying with said rules. They can change the rules going forward but not retrospectively. As for the point about 'lying'... have we really though. If it's in the accounts, that means it's been signed off by the auditor which should mean that there is proof of the sale falling within the accounting period otherwise they wouldn't have been able to sign it off. And if that's the case, then we should win. If we've fabricated documentation and provided this to the auditors then Chansiri has much bigger problems than the EFL as that would be fraud. No evidence of that though yet.
  3. It isn't as simple as that though... the accounts have been signed off by an auditor, we've liaised with the EFL throughout the process and they signed the accounts off too. If this all went to a proper court then I think we'd win easily, but the EFL love a kangaroo court so who knows
  4. What makes you think we'll get deducted more points than Birmingham did last season?
  5. There is no coherent vision or strategy... the plan was to get promoted in time for the 150th anniversary year in 2017, Chansiri even said that himself. So we spent pretty much all his money on trying to achieve that and it didn't work. It's what happens when you're not good enough for automatic promotion and you rely on the play off lottery. I'm not sure he has anything left to put in, probably already gone through most of his budget and it's enough just covering ongoing losses. Net transfer spend for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 is negative as we've not spent big money on anyone despite the team badly needing refreshing. I wouldn't care if they released the whole squad as sick of watching these over paid players who can't even win a game when they're in front going in to injury time every week
  6. America is a mess financially, it's worse than here as they have a huge budget deficit of $1 trillion. And their healthcare system is a joke. I work in investment consulting so read a lot about economics and there's big problems coming soon. Last year the financial system nearly crashed again because the central banks tried to remove some of the exceptional stimulus that's been in place since the financial crisis, they just can't ween it off it without things going south. This year, growth has been slowing yet almost all asset markets have been going up substantially because they started stimulating again. There's a real disconnect between lots of things at the moment and it's not good. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/world-has-gone-mad-system-broken-ray-dalio The above might be of interest if you're into that kind of thing. As for taxes, putting up income tax on those earning more than £80k won't raise much because 1. There's not that many people who do and 2. If you do, the bulk of them probably earn between £80k and £120k say. There are hardly any super wealthy people earning massive amounts of money and paying income tax on it as it's not economical to be paid in that way for them. Income tax is a tax on the regular person. The real stupid money comes in investment portfolios or private companies paying dividends to owners. Unfortunately this is where the tax system is lacking because there just isn't the same level of tax levied on these types of income. In the US, it's a big thing for next year's election with the candidates standing against Trump advocating wealth taxes
  7. Voted for it as wanted sovereignty so that all decisions are made by our parliament... and to give us control over immigration policy. Plus think European economies have structural issues that are almost impossible to address because of the monetary union and no co-ordinated fiscal policy, and think it will be easier to trade with higher growth markets. I'd still vote the same way if we had another referendum. But have a little less faith in our own parliament making decisions after the last 3 years, and even if we get control over immigration it doesn't sound like any of the parties will actually cut it anyway. And the trade deals appear a lot more complicated than they did back in 2016 and could take a while. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that it probably takes 5-10 years before we start seeing any benefits from it if it goes smoothly
  8. Best of a bad bunch mate... when they came in in 2010 they had to cut, was inevitable given where finances were at. What usually happens (and should happen) after this long in power though is the opposition should be climbing in the polls as people fancy a change and new ideas. But because of Corbyn there's no effective opposition. If Labour had a centrist leader they'd win the election, but because they don't Tories will win again. I'll be voting Tory because I voted to Leave and it's the only way of getting it through.. the difficulty is that if you voted Leave, you want change you have nowhere to go because you can't vote Lib Dem given their Brexit stance, and you can't vote Labour because of Corbyn. So stuck with Tories until next time around
  9. They are in my view.. I'm not saying Labour are never electable, I thought the Blair government initially was very electable and so did many others given the majority they had. It's more that the Labour front bench comes across as incompetent to me and they aren't even in office. Can't have Dianne Abbott doing one of the top jobs. And on top of that, the things they want to do with public spending is dangerous financially for the country. I'd vote for Labour if they were in the centre ground but currently they're quite far to the left and it would wreck the economy
  10. If you live in Sheffield then yes it's a lot of money... you'd have a lot of disposable income. But the bulk of the jobs paying that sort of money are in London... and if you're a 40-50 year old couple, one earning 100k and the other 50k say, and you have kids, and no relatives locally to look after them.. your money isn't going to go very far. Will all go on a mortgage on a modest terraced house, day to day expenses and paying for a nanny. You'd be shocked at how quickly it goes
  11. You obviously don't have an appreciation of how expensive it is in London... I'm on £60k here so I'd guess you'd say I'm well off and should pay more tax. But it's all relative... I pay a grand a month in a house share for what's basically a bedroom, have little prospect of buying a place of my own, and everything is expensive. If you go out, you're looking at £5.50 for a pint and given the culture here is to head out for a few after work on a semi regular basis it adds up. Not going to lie, £60k in London is basically the same as about £35k in Sheffield. Given most of the 'high' earners are concentrated in London then I'd say yes they're not that well off. I know lots of people on £100k+ and they work very hard for their money, and lots of them are 40-50, have a family to provide for with many of them having family all over the country so they have to pay for childcare which is very expensive here. Just saying if you look at how much disposable income people have left over it's not a huge amount. There are literally billions upon billions of financial assets which are mainly owned by the top 1% with minimal taxes paid on them as they all have clever accountants. Your average guy on £100k a year is a sitting duck via PAYE.. he's just like you or me but sacrifices more of his life to work than we do. If they really wanted to fix inequality, then wealth taxes is the way... particularly as these people have benefited disproportionately from low interests over the last decade as it's inflated the price of everything
  12. I think there's a misconception that someone who earns £100,000 a year is wealthy... they aren't particularly. On average they'll be middle aged with a family to support, live in London with high house prices and working long hours. So I think a lot of them deserve their money tbh. My main point is that if you earn £100k, you're probably in the top 2% of earners. So if 2% of people pay an extra grand, it doesn't add up to very much at all in the context of raising money to benefit everybody. Most of the people who are actually wealthy don't pay much income tax as most of their money comes from dividends and capital gains, or inheritance. These things are taxed at a much lower rate. Should go after that if they want to see inequality drop... these things would help whereas heavy income tax just stops social climbing which is a bad idea. Think Corbyn and friends (McDonnell, Abbott etc) are completely unelectable. The problem with this government is we have no effective opposition. Will take another Tory win for Corbyn to quit and maybe then Labour can get someone in who most people can vote for
  13. Well there’s a few problems with this.. one is it diminishes aspiration as there’s no point pushing yourself to earn more if they just tax it all so productivity takes a hit And the other one is that if, as you say, it’s a small percentage of the population, then it isn’t going to raise anywhere near enough revenue to make a difference They need to focus on wealth taxes but in a way that doesn’t crash the economy. So probably levies on ultra high net worth and inheritance taxes are the way to go
  14. Got unemployment down to the lowest level since 1974, reduced the budget deficit down to less than 2% of GDP from over 10%, given us a referendum to get us out of the EU
  • Create New...