Aggy
-
Content Count
4,585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Aggy
-
-
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.
On 22/09/2024 at 19:58, Fen Canary said:The 16.4 is completely destroying the domestic season. The ECB need to scrap it, but they don’t because they’ve dug themselves into a hole heavily promoting it so now are too scared to see it fail. If only they’d put this much effort into promoting the Blast in the first place.
Aren’t they still talking about changing it to a t20 tournament when the current sky deal expires…. But still calling it the hundred…. -
16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:dressing up vapid bits of personally-targeted baiting,
At least you don’t bite though
-
9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:Good of you to implicitly acknowledge that you've never had one.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:If you ever had any good arguments/rebuttals to make, you might occasionally depart from your usual trope of jumping in trying to bait with mockery while saying nothing whatsoever of interest.
If I ever have a good argument/rebuttal I won’t bother wasting it on you
-
26 minutes ago, Herman said:As I have proved time and again I have zero patience with birdie so I will try and explain how my industry works pre and post brexit, to the best of my knowledge, later on.
He’s got an old school friend / neighbour / customer who knows far more about it than you though, so not much point.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:What seems blindingly obvious to me is that elections shouldn't be won because people voted for parties they don't truly support.
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.
-
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:My first thought on reading that was "what are drinking rates like amongst mainland European kids?" as they often get exposed to alcohol at a pretty early age and it does look like they've gone up. I would agree that highlighting dangers makes more sense.
Re. the comparison between alcohol and smoking, obviously there's the issue of passive smoking and you can't get passively drunk so I can see the difference there (it might manifest itself as neglect instead with alcohol), but there seems to be strong research showing that children of alcoholics are considerably more likely to become alcoholics themselves. That lends itself to a preventative approach - maybe something similar in terms of what excessive alcohol consumption does to the liver could be the foundation of an educational campaign to this effect?
Alcohol intake among teenagers in Europe in 2018 | Statista
Teen alcohol and nicotine use in Europe is up, WHO urges preventive measures | UN News
Children of alcoholics: helping a vulnerable group. - PMC (nih.gov)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.
-
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:Certainly the overt beer adverts have largely gone - isn't there some sort of 9pm watershed for alcohol ads.
However, if the 'ads' don't work why on earth would any commercial organization pay for them?
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.)
-
38 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:Sure, but how many other illnesses arise from years of bad decisions? Especially obesity-related ones? Meanwhile, alcohol is also a frequent cause of violent crime and also plays a part in over 100 more illnesses - and that's before we even look at things such as lost productivity or absenteeism from work. So, the notion that the figure for costs is inflated seems shaky at best simply as alcohol is a contributory factor to so many other things.
Government not taking “appalling” harms from alcohol seriously enough - Committees - UK Parliament
Indeed, this estimates that total social costs came up to over £50 billion a year, and that was in 2005-2006 - so this predates the first link where the situation had got worse.
Microsoft Word - The costs of alcohol to society.docx (ias.org.uk)
That last comparison is rather superficial - sport is healthy, alcohol is anything but unless in very small quantities (and often specific types of it too - the antioxidants in red wine may have a protective impact on heart health, but only one glass a day is needed. In fact, there was a doctor/lecturer of considerable national repute at the hospital Miss TGS trained at who insisted that his patients had a glass of red wine every day with lunch for that reason) so one's an unfortunate side-effect of a healthy activity, the other is naturally not a healthy activity.
There are definitely fields of state overreach, but I don't think aiding public health is one of them.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. -
On 13/09/2024 at 08:44, Yellow Fever said:I'd love to add a gambling add ban too!
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…)
-
On 13/09/2024 at 08:44, Nik Vawn said:Nanny state isn’t always a bad thing. There is no point in trying to fix the NHS if your population, particularly your younger population, continues to get less healthy. As with any health promotion intervention it is always easy to pick holes in the detail, for me it’s not about the detail but about a genuine recognition in government that they need to act to help improve the health of the nation, and good on them.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:You guess what you like, dumbass.
“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. 👍
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:It's neither; it's not any sort of answer to your question. That's playing by the rules by which you've stated this should work. This threads about stabbings at a daycare in Southport and you're off topic and your questions have nothing to do with that. Start a new thread.
I’m guessing the racist one then. 👍
-
13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:You shouldn't be discussing that. It's off topic. Start a new thread about it.
So is that ‘no, I’m a racist who thinks trying to burn immigrants alive shouldn’t result in a prison sentence’, or ‘yes and your earlier post about me arguing for the sake of it and being a wind up merchant is bang on’?
-
19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:By your definitions the post about the guy going to prison was already off topic with regard to the original stabbings; maybe you should have a word with Pyro Pete.
I've been looking back on what you've had to say on this thread and basically what you've had to say is this: Sweet FA. You have some half-arsed digs at people with stupid questions and insinuations that they're racist and that's it. You're useless.
So, should the chap in the post you quoted have received a prison sentence?
-
17 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:what do you think about the state of the prison service?
Start a new thread about the state of the prison service, and I might answer.
As for the rest, I have no idea what you’re saying, because as usual you’re just making noise. I think you might be saying you agree this chap (in the post you quoted) should have got a prison sentence. But rather than actually say that when quoting the post, you wanted to try and point score against the poster, and to argue for the sake of arguing. So you instead made a point nobody else was discussing, to try and criticise Labour and ‘lefties’, despite seemingly agreeing with the ‘lefties’ on this particular issue about the man receiving a custodial sentence. So basically, you’re a wind up merchant. Have I got that right?
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:Like I said, you should have started sooner in the thread.
Nope. You quoted a post about a bloke being sentenced to 9 years for trying to burn immigrants alive and responded by talking about crowded prisons. So do you think that chap shouldn’t have been sentenced to a custodial sentence or were you just making random off topic replies to people?
(Ps tbh I don’t really care if it is off topic, I just enjoy you showing yourself up as a hypocritical wind up merchant.)
-
2
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:You don't half ask some stupid questions.
Given that the stabbings were the original trigger for the riots, and the sentences were for people in the riots, it's not off topic. Also, it's not a stretch to go from references to one sentence from the riots to talking about the general sentencing strategy of the riots and the problems it's creating for the already struggling prison service.
Otherwise, if relationships to topics in threads had to be as strict as you're suggesting then posts about sentencing individuals sentenced in the riots are off topic in the first place, in which case you're a bit too late to the party in terms of the attempted censure.
If a more practical approach had been taken for the less serious offenders, there'd be more scope not to have to consider early release for people like this guy in the story, who is a serious offender. Because some people who have committed very serious offences have been released early due to prison overcrowding, and that's before the new wave.
Additionally, the danger of prison sentences for the more trivial involvement in the riots where people may not previously have had criminal records is that those people become part of the revolving door prisoner problem consequent of the fact that our prison system is entirely focussed on punishment, with no effective efforts regarding rehabilitation into society.
In conclusion, I support the government for wanting to send a strong message regarding the riots and deterring future riots, but I think they should, and could, have aimed to send that message with a lot more consideration to the practical problems such a large wave of prisoners for a prison service already at breaking point by putting a bit more thought into proportionate sentencing for the minor offences and/or first time offenders.
And generally, the motivation for the point is that you and your buds crowing about one obviously very nasty guy going to prison like that solves everything when the problem is so much bigger and more complicated is somewhat asinine, so it's good to throw a bit of cold water on it.
If you want to talk about overcrowded prisons please start a thread on it and stop derailing this one….
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:Most people only like the performative aspect of the argument rather than actually discussing the matter at hand. To then there’s no point having the discussion if nobody else can give it the thumbs up
Good job you’ve raised this with them privately then rather than announcing it publicly on a public message board to try and get a few likes. 🙄
-
30 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:Not interested then? Fair enough. Offer is there if you want it
Correct. With no disrespect meant to you personally, I don’t really care what your (or anyone else’s) opinion is. I come to read opinions and agree or disagree with them - the poster is irrelevant and so I have no interest in taking the discussion “offline” with any individual.
-
3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:They imprisoned some people simply for being there without even doing anything as such.
But the post you quoted was about someone being imprisoned for 9 years for trying to endanger life by setting immigrants on fire.
So do you think that shouldn’t result in a custodial sentence or were you just taking the thread off topic? The former would probably make you a raving loony racist. The latter would, according to some on here, be worse!
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:Always assuming the prison system doesn't collapse in the next nine years.
Are we sure the logical response from a non-racist person to a post about a white supremacist being imprisoned for trying to burn immigrants alive is to ignore that and make an off topic post about the prisons being too full?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I was chatting to a Liverpool fan today who I thought was a bit younger than me but not massively so. They didn’t know sami hyypia….
-
1
-
The end of the transfer system as we know it?
in Main Discussion - Norwich City
Posted · Edited by 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.