Aggy

Yes but compensation for terminating the contract would be calculated differently. A transfer fee currently is basically open market value and highest bidder wins (subject to players agreeing terms etc.). And if a club doesn’t want to pay the inflated price tag, the player doesn’t move.

Not sure the guardian article is all that clear. As I understand it, currently if a player unilaterally terminates his contract, both he and his new club would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the old club. The new club would also potentially be liable for sporting sanctions (points deductions etc.) Diarra says that effectively stops new clubs from employing a player who has unilaterally terminated their contract, and is therefore an unfair restriction on trade. The bigger of the two to me seems to be the sporting sanctions. I suspect most players wouldn’t terminate their contract unless the new club would agree to pay the compensation. And as the compensation might be lower than a transfer fee, clubs might be happy to do so. But not if they’re going to get whacked with a points deduction…. Take the points deduction / sporting sanctions out of the equation though, and you would basically no longer have transfer fees as we know them. The selling club wouldn’t be able to set a price or refuse to sell. Players would just unilaterally terminate their contracts and then (probably backed by the new club) pay compensation. Probably though, to avoid litigation and uncertainty, there would still be an element of clubs agreeing the compensation payable (which might mean “transfer fees” aren’t hugely reduced). But it would mean more bargaining power for the buying club and the player in engineering a move (and potentially lower transfer fees?).

I’ve thought for a while 50 over cricket is the most at risk of fading into obscurity. I used to go with my dad as a kid with a packed lunch and make a day of it, but tbh now I can’t remember the last 50 over game - domestic or international - I watched. T20 you can go for the evening. Test is still for me the pinnacle. 50 over just a bit stuck in between. Aren’t they still talking about changing it to a t20 tournament when the current sky deal expires…. But still calling it the hundred….

At least you don’t bite though

Yes, it was a jokey response with a bit of self depreciating humour and suggesting you’re a bit dim. Looks like it landed about right.

If I ever have a good argument/rebuttal I won’t bother wasting it on you

He’s got an old school friend / neighbour / customer who knows far more about it than you though, so not much point.

Except there would never be a party realistically whose manifesto you agree with 100 per cent. There might be a party more aligned to your views in a PR system, but that party might get a tiny percentage of the vote. You’re then hoping the other similar-ish parties can all agree to work together in a coalition that works more soundly than a coalition of parties who you completely disagree with. And if your party is having to compromise to make a coalition work, then is it really that different? Add to that the electorate probably wouldn’t have any say in how the coalitions are formed - and you might be wishing you had the ability to vote tactically to keep out Labour/the Tories rather than ending up with a coalition which allows more extreme parties to have a seat at the table despite having tiny vote shares.

Yes I’d agree alcohol is more obviously a closer link to junk food in that there isn’t necessarily a direct “passive smoking” type impact on children from alcohol (although would be interested to see how it impacts child abuse (physical and mental issues) /neglect etc as you say). Agree with the second bit. Again like smoking really - if your parents and family didn’t smoke then you were a lot less likely to smoke yourself. If you were tempted to get into smoking through peer pressure, for instance, would not seeing adverts have stopped you? Or would seeing pictures of the impact on your lungs have been more likely to stop you? It’s a wider point for me as well - I have absolutely no problem with the government educating people based on science - show the negative impact of junk food, teach kids about the issues with it. I have more of an issue with government dictating what can be advertised.

The ads might work for persuading people to buy their type of alcohol. Where is the evidence they cause young people to get into unsafe drinking habits and their banning would stop that? (edit: And while cigarettes are now tucked away in a closed cupboard at the back of the store, if you take your child to the super market the first thing they are likely to see is adverts for deals on crates of beer etc.. Budweiser for the England football team? Etc.)

Always amuses me how some people who are all for banning adverts about junk food and smoking and trying to limit their sale etc. etc. have no issue with kids seeing adverts for beer everywhere and being taken round aisles of alcohol in supermarkets by their parents. Smoking in front of kids is a no no but getting through a bottle of wine a few evenings a week in front of them, no worries. Alcohol is an interesting one though. There clearly isn’t a ban on its advertising and yet Gen Z is supposed to drink about 20 per cent less than millennials who drink less than their parents… I wonder whether education and campaigns aimed at highlighting dangers are more effective than hoping children don’t see a TV ad. Like smoking - I’d imagine seeing those horrible pics and adverts about what it does to your lungs and the general education campaign had far more to do with it.

Perhaps an alcohol ad ban as well? Taking into account the cost of policing etc as well as the cost to the nhs, alcohol now costs the country about 27bn a year. https://britishlivertrust.org.uk/27-4-billion-cost-of-alcohol-harm-in-england-every-year/ (And of course obesity - which along with food related health issues cost the nhs slightly more than alcohol related health issues - is not helped by drinking hundreds of extra calories in alcoholic drinks…)

Is it correct that the younger generations are getting less healthy? More obese than older generations were at their age possibly yes, although I suspect obesity in the middle aged and above is higher than those who are younger. And I would have thought the older generations had (still have?) proportionately a lot more smokers and heavy drinkers. The biggest “problem” is still that old people keep living longer.

“Edited just now by littleyellowbirdie” The first one must have been a real zinger if this is the re-considered edited version. Anyhoo, I’ll leave you to your new dictionary of insults for primary school kids while you’re pondering whether it’s best to go with the racist or wind up merchant answer to what is a very simple question. 👍

I’m guessing the racist one then. 👍