Jump to content

duke63

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by duke63

  1. Posted

    1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    No doubt some did, and if the argument was that nobody believed leave's economic arguments then that would be enough to disprove it, but that's not the assertion. The assertion is that it helped tip the balance for a leave win in the face of the much more compelling and comprehensive economic arguments from remain. No amount of anecdotes good enough to make that case.

    Sorry, but this keeps getting asserted again and again like it's fact, but if it's fact then the data should be there to back it up. Where is it?

    Regardless of the last Brexit vote, give it ten years when many Brexit voters have passed on and younger generations visit Europe and see they are so far ahead of us in so many aspects and their standard of living is much better, then younger generations will demand another vote to rejoin. 
     

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    51 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

    I can agree with most of this which is why the 2030 to 2035 date doesn't matter.

    More generally - There is an industrial phrase which is used occasionally for sales which is pertinent  -

    'Technological Push or Market Pull'

    Frankly EVs are still in both phases. The Technology 'push' phase i.e the technology is ahead of the market desire and being fostered upon us probably before it is mature and certainly not with the necessary infrastructure support it. 

    The Market 'Pull' is now however taking over with demand for much cheaper vehicles and longer ranges comparable to ICE (else you end with two car families). 

    Which is where it all becomes nonsensical. 
     

    I bet one charge a week on an EV would be sufficient for the majority of drivers on their current mileage. But too many want a £50k SUV on PCP with an engine size and range they will never need. 
    the tax regime should be used to encourage the purchase of new EVs at the expense of ICEs. 

  3. Posted

    15 hours ago, ricardo said:

    They will still be buying ICE cars from Europe up to 2035 so what we do won't make one iota of difference. 

    Manufacturrers will stop selling them well before 2035 in my opinion. They are not the future and as such R&D has already stopped on them.

    By the time 2030 comes round manufacturers across Euirope will already be moving to factories making only EVs, its proper business sense to do so.

    And if our climate heats up over the next 5 years as it has over the last 5, we will already be in deep trouble as a human race. Our way of life will HAVE to change irrevocably.

  4. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

    Carol vorderman! ? Last I heard she was busy with about five guys. And I don’t mean flipping burgers (I think). Has she become a social media personality now?

     

     

    She's just calling out the absurdity and lies of the Tory kn9bheads.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    On 18/09/2023 at 17:40, KiwiScot said:

    Because she's going to lower taxes(then repeat that five times to any other argument)

    We have had 13 years of that rhetoric and look where it has got us!

     

    More than double the national debt

    Next to no police force.

    NHS on its knees and private healthcare taking over.

    Roads falling to pieces quite literally.

    Way to much traffic on the roads yet an ever poorer local public transport service.

    A rail service that is decades behind our European neighbours.

    HMRC on its knees.

    Local Councils no longer funded properly and going bust one after the other.

    School buildings in danger of collapse on our pupils.. 174 separate schools at today's count.

    Due to the above, some students only spending every other week at school.

    The highest inflation figures in the 'advanced' world.

    Public borrowing at record levels.

     

    Seems to me that tax cuts are the very very last thing this Country needs.

     

     

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

    This is a very simplistic view. We need business (economic activity) to create the wealth to pay for the services like health that we all take for granted. We don't live in an Eden and the world doesn't owe us living however much we'd like it too.

    Everything as ever is a compromise.

    We are currently allowing business decisions to completely shape our way of life which is why we have global warming running out of control, **** flowing into our seas and rivers, the air we breathe being full of pollutants and the food we eat not really being food at all in many cases. 
    Unless we start to reverse that then human race will not survive. Greed is destroying us. 

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

    I rather suspect that there be some unintended consequences and more costs (not the positives) from this unless the various councils quickly separate out all roads that need to be kept at 30mph i.e. all the bus major routes and main roads for starters unless you wish for busses to be even slower, more expensive and yet more delayed !

    Indeed the blanket scheme strikes me as more ideology (this time from the 'left') than practical. Then again some people it seems don't realize that business, retail etc needs transport else it will go and setup elsewhere. 'F * *k' business was Johnson's idealistic expletive when reality interfered with his dreams. It seems the same is true here. Amazon and out of town business parks and retail parks must be loving it.

    Business should never be allowed to over ride what benefits people health and happiness.

    Traffic is a blot on our lives much of the time. There is too much of it and too many people are in a desperate hurry to get somewhere either because they haven't left themselves enough time or they are trying to cram too much into their lives.

    I doubt much traffic travels above 20 mph much of the time anyway in urban areas.

    If you car keeps a track of average speed travelled over a length of time go and check what it says and i bet it reads an average of less than 30mph.

  10. Posted

    As i just posted in another thread, the Everton owner's statement on why he is selling is very pertinent. Unless you are owned by one of those stated, any other clubs will ultimately be left behind and struggle to survive.

     

    Moshiri said in a statement: "The nature of ownership and financing of top football clubs has changed immeasurably since I first invested in Everton over seven years ago.

    "The days of an owner/benefactor are seemingly out of reach for most, and the biggest clubs are now typically owned by well-resourced private equity firms, specialist sports investors or state-backed companies and funds."

    • Thanks 1

  11. Posted

    8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    I'm extremely unhappy but I will be voting in favour. There is no choice I'm afraid, unless one of us wins Euromillions in the next few days. 

    Interesting to read the Everton owner's take on why he is selling. Sadly i think if we don't follow suit, eventually we will end up as a League One or League Two club.at best. Money talks in the end.

    Moshiri said in a statement: "The nature of ownership and financing of top football clubs has changed immeasurably since I first invested in Everton over seven years ago.

    "The days of an owner/benefactor are seemingly out of reach for most, and the biggest clubs are now typically owned by well-resourced private equity firms, specialist sports investors or state-backed companies and funds."

  12. Posted

    15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

    Perhaps they take more tax from 4 X 4s. Co-op carpark and Tesco car park full of them whenthe kids go to school and come home.

    Only in the vat on purchase.
    They should be taxed off the road if they are big polluters. 

  13. Posted

    This morning we even have a Government minister ( Mordaunt) berating Welsh parliament for setting a 20mph urban speed limit to protect people - not motorists or business but people walking about in their locality. If we set more 20mph limits maybe more will get off their arses and use their legs to go 1 mile down the road. People have been hoodwinked for too long by this government of populists who are actually killing the Country for the majority ( unless you are a multi millionaire and dont feel you should pay any tax).

     

     

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

    I can see why you get angry. This government does a lot wrong.  But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The memification of politics by all sides means that parties never get beyond campaign mode and no one looks beyond or behind the next 90 character attack line.

    Nutrient neutrality is an example (there will be many others) It should have been a highly technical and boring exercise of tweaking the balance that town planners  need to consider when looking out housing delivery proposals in a certain few areas.

    What it became is a social media trend with people joyfully attacking or defending policies with no actual idea what they are fighting over and whether or not their position is actually helpful either to the environment or to house building.

    Bring boring back! We have two leaders more than capable of doing that, let's let them do it.

    We need leaders and politicians who represent the people they are supposed to represent.

    Not representing big business, wealthy individuals, campaign groups.

    Britain is falling to pieces but people appear to blind to see that. Try travelling abroad a bit and you will soon see how far behind we are starting to look - Health service collapsing so the Government can promote private heathcare companies, no police service to protect the public, HMRC on the verge of collapse, schools, courts and hospitals falling apart because they were built for short term profit and not longevity, an obsession with house building at any cost (many of which will likely be falling part in 30 years time having seen at first hand how poorly they are built), roads with too much traffic and road surfaces in need of billions of £s to bring them up to standard, again no police on the roads so poor driving is becoming the norm.

    I could go on but all we hear from politicians is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. There is a pay off from that and we are now seeing it very clearly - a country in dire need of massive investment just to bring it up to standard. 13 or so years of no infrastructure investment and the Country is falling apart.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

    Attanasio would argue his 40% stake has been gained by injecting £50m into the club through various means. That values the club at c.£125m. Some people sold their shares for £200 in the last 6 months. They therefore valued the club at a slightly higher amount (200 x 619,900). One shouldn't just focus on one metric, any business will have various valuations depending on who is offering the valuation. Vote against the Waiver and you risk the valuation to be close to zero. Its difficult ...

    Any business or asset is only worth what a potential buyer is prepared to pay for it.

    Bearing in mind its a football club that would need significant cash invested to move it on to another level and at the last published accounts its assets only outweighed its liabilities by £2.75 million, you could argue he has paid £5 million for a 40% share in an asset worth £2.75 million which seems poor value to me.

  19. Posted

    1 minute ago, essex canary said:

    The documents don't appear to be clear about this but I have been assured by a member of the Club's Senior Management Team that the poll is on the basis of number of shares held. Previous polls have displayed a very low level of turnout. 

    There are 156,507 shares eligible to vote. The holding level of these vary greatly. In practice higher volume holders are surely more likely to vote than lower volume holders. Abstentions are therefore likely to give higher volume holders disproportionate influence albeit that number of shares held is in many senses only fair given the implications for individual holders.

    The Canaries Trust is likely to have around 5% of the vote if everybody voted though in practice perhaps substantially higher. Given that it's members may have different opinions, how will they determine how to vote?

    The 24  Associate Directors will have individual voting entitlement and around 4 times the voting weight of the Trust.

    Has the Club carefully considered the implications of this in terms of being able to deliver a voting system in practice that can be perceived to be fair?

     

    How else could you do it that would be fair? Surely one vote per share is entirely the correct way to do it?
    It’s why people invest in shares to have some say in how a company is governed. 

    It’s also why if you are entitled to vote then you should use it, even if you hold only one share. That vote will count. 

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    Bearing in mind all but less than half a dozen EPL clubs are run on the basis that a wealthy owner funds their considerable losses, including the most successful, then I fail to see what other options we have than to sell players for considerable fees if it suits. 
     

    The club made a huge mistake with Cantwell in not selling when his stock was high and ended up giving him away. 
     

    I’m not sure Big Andy has made a sensible move nor currently has the ability to be an accomplished PL defender so I think it was probably the right thing for the club to sell now. 

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    That's true if most voters prioritise voting against one or the other over voting for another option.

    When Labour overtook the old liberals in the early 20th century, it happened because people started voting for them with no mind to whether it would advantages the Tories or the Liberals.

    Only way anything will change is if people start voting for their preferred option.

    Only the UK and Belarus still use the FPTP system in Europe which tells you why Britain is declining and decaying very fast.

    We badly need PR to be introduced and also to do away with the system of power and privilege by birth.

    The richest here are getting very rich and everyone else is paying for it!

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...