 | Forum
Reply | 'Martin Out' fans are clueless!
at 15:41 24 Sep 2024
I completely understand why some "fans" want a change in manager (boring play, obstinate tactics, playing players out of position, bizarre substitutions) and I also completely understand that it's not going to happen.
RM wanted to play PL football in the Champ in the belief that it would get us promoted. In my view it did not. We got promoted because we changed the playing style to be bit more direct following a run of poor results in the last half dozen games of the season.
How much of that was done on manager's orders and how much was it the players deciding for themselves? Who knows.
We made promotion by luck. WBA and Leeds hit a bad patch at the wrong time.
Then we see the same style adopted in the PL - and the same errors being made only now they result in a goal against as the PL strikers are better. Loyalty to players has been suggested as a reason we started so poorly. Personally I think it's RM trying to show everybody that he was right all along.
In the last game we see us creeping back to that more direct style and frankly we were unlucky not to win. However Ipswich will be bottom 5 in May next year and a draw at home is not ideal.
RM should have had the newer players playing sooner. Loyalty be damned - if they're better than what we have, play them.
And this is where for me, he lacks something. Either he is stubborn to an unreasonable degree or he is limited and out of his depth.
Doesn't really matter for now because the Board will back him and unless/until we are relegared he is here to stay. |
| Forum
Reply | A huge sense of entitlement
at 16:55 23 Sep 2024
Depends what you think the ticket money is for.
If all you want is entertainment and care nothing for the result, save your money and go to the theatre/cinema/circus/pub/restaurant.
If the ball is in play (and when we play sideways and backwards there's always the risk that the opposition will win it from us and score) then something may happen.
If the ball is not in play for 28 minutes then why pay for it. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 16:52 23 Sep 2024
I see the thread has morphed a little into a discussion on virtual wealth vs precious metals.
I am not, never will be, an expert on crypto but I understand the concept to be that the value of the currency is not correlated to any particular economy, industry or anything material that we might traditionally regard as valuable.
IN other words it's based on a fictional world of supply and demand. IN essence a parallel financial world which presumably can be manipulated by crypto providers but otherwise has not connection with - for example - industrial output or the cost of services or retail prices.
If my attempt at a description is anywhere near correct (and I accept it may not be) then I think I'm of an age to consider this risky.
If however I'm wrong, why can the Gov't not create a crypto currency and pay benefits in said currency to whatever level they like? |
| Forum
Reply | A huge sense of entitlement
at 16:43 23 Sep 2024
Interesting table on the BBC website.
Measures average time taken for a goal kick, corner, free kick etc.
Arsenal and Villa top of that table at 34 seconds per event.
Saints are 8th (highest we'll be this season that's for sure) at 29 seconds.
Think about it. A team might have 10 corners, 15 free kicks and say 25 goal kicks and throw ins. That's close on 28 minutes of fans just watching nothing happen. Think the club should refund 25% of the ticket price? |
| Forum
Reply | A huge sense of entitlement
at 13:27 23 Sep 2024
Well the City enquiry is expected to last until late this year or early next.
There will be an appeal - perhaps more than one.
A decision by the start of next season?
If that is the case, I'd expect City to be prevented from buying/selling players at worst.
Perhaps a slap on the wrist in terms of points deductions, certainly not enough to threaten them with relegation in the 25/26 season. |
| Forum
Thread | A huge sense of entitlement
at 12:23 23 Sep 2024
I watched some of the City/Arsenal game.
Had to turn it off (before the late equaliser). Then read some of the reaction today and got angry again.
The payers in the PL were all told that kicking the ball away would be a yellow card. Trossard clearly did that and Arteta moaning about the ref following the rules is pathetic and childish and does him,his club and the PL no favours.
Then we see a whole half of time wasting at every opportunity from Arsenal in particular.
The day I run the PL, it would mean Arsenal losing the point they claimed.
What arrogance to think that your club is big enough to have its own rule book. |
| Forum
Thread | Does a small improvement against a weak team = corner turned?
at 08:39 23 Sep 2024
Have seen extended highlights of the Ipswich match.
I'm pleased to see that our possession stat was lower than usual but that the ratio of attempts per minute of possession was better.
Less pleased to see that Ipswich had more attempts than we did. Allowing the opposition to have an effort at goal, will eventually allow then to score and Ramsdale kept us in that match.
Disappointed that we did not score another especially as Ipswich came forward and allowed space at the back.
In my view the subs brought on killed our momentum and ambition and I'm baffled as to why RM did that.
|
| Forum
Thread | Beware Apostle and Goodchild
at 08:33 23 Sep 2024
There was an accounting firm called Apostle Accounting.
They were owned and operated by a Zoe Goodchild.
Following a high profile campaign from HMRC, the activities of this firm were deemed to be unacceptable and a Tribunal case was accelerated to a hearing.
In short, Apostle/Goodchild would encourage "clients/victims" to make claims for expenses that had never been incurred. Because HMRC operate a pay first, check later system, many taxpayers got a refund, a good percentage of which went to Apostle/Goodchild.
It was close to fraud.
In the Tribunal case HMRC made a huge error. Not only did they fail to observe the terms and conditions of the assessment they made, but they then failed to bring their witness to the hearing.
Unsurprisingly, they lost. Not because the taxpayer had a good case but because HMRC failed to bring any case.
Goodchild is now crowing that she has "won". She has not. She also thinks that the taxpayer's case is the actual decision. I suspect that she is not the sharpest tool in the box but she is a good saleswoman.
Her firm is now renamed "Innovative".
HMRC will stop this fraud and will punish all those who used it.
Please - DO NOT - use this firm, this adviser or make any claims on HMRC that cannot be justified and supported with evidence.
If you are already a victim, go and get unbiased and proper advice. Most firms operating in the tax enquiry space will give you 30 minutes for free. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 08:22 23 Sep 2024
NO such thing as approved avoidance or unapproved avoidance.
There is no definition of avoidance in tax law.. It's basically whatever somebody in HMRC thinks is "unacceptable" that day.
ISA, pensions, EIS, SEIS, VCT - all - to use your phrase - approved avoidance.
Unsubstantiated expense claims, tax losses without commercial effect, gilts stripping, payments via trusts and loans - all unapproved avoidance which is legal but nonetheless chased down by HMRC.
This is where the cost is. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 11:45 20 Sep 2024
The focus here is whether the benefits offered (in this case sickness benefit) is being fairly claimed or applied.
There are however some issues above which touch on tax avoidance and evasion (separate things) and whether reducing those measures would allow us to pay more in benefits.
Whilst observing that such "logic" is missing the point, let's throw some facts around.
HMRC measures what it calls the tax gap. Latest value is just under £40bn. This is 4.8% of the total tax they estimate are due. This is down from 7.5% in 2005.
The measure distinguishes as foloows.:
Failure to take reasonable care - circa £12bn
Error and evasion - note the "error" - £12bn
Criminal attacks - £4bn
Differences in legal interpretation* - £4bn
Hidden economy - £2bn
Avoidance - £1.6bn
(I'm aware that these do do add exactly to the apparent "gap").
Chasing avoidance is expensive. If every case was chased, the cost may well be north of £250m and therefore the net amount collected would barely be enough to move the dial.
The criminal activity is mainly smuggling of cigarettes, fuel, alcohol. It is generally reckoned to be about as low as it can reasonably be.
The biggies are failure to take care and error/evasion.
Failure to take reasonable care is often excused because of the enormously complex tax law we have. Reducing that value has been very difficult and will not get better as more and more law is added.
Error - is often genuine. HMRC is not equipped to investigate every taxpayer and error unspotted is inevitable. I do not know how much of that £12bn is error and how much evasion.
Evasion is illegal. It often relies upon false declarations and hiding the truth. Again difficult to know the difference between this and error.
Let's assume however that HMRC targeted this (they have been content to allow it to carry on around the same percentage for 20 years) and collected 90%. Or £11bn. (Bear in mind that at the last report, HMRC is prepping Gov't to write off £19bn of tax that they say can never be collected - which is a different debate).
The increase in sickness claims is estimated to have cost £63bn. So £11bn is a dent but not significant. |
| Forum
Reply | Millions of pounds a year time to strike
at 09:58 20 Sep 2024
In my humble opinion, there is no direct causal link between "the money" and the physical/mental wellbeing of the player.
The clubs who want success need to attract the best players. The market for those players sets the appropriate salary/reward level.
But if being the best player you can be comes with a physical load that shortens your career (perhaps ends it) is that fair? |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 09:54 20 Sep 2024
Having contributed to several studies on wealth taxes, including quite a serious attempt by the last administration to find a way to introduce one, I can confirm that they are seen by most developed economies as counter productive, difficult to operate and political dynamite. They make a great slogan for the vox pops but otherwise contribute little.
I've also worked in Sweden and know quite a few tax advisers there. Yes, they have high tax rates but these are linked to measures and processes which prevent the Gov't of the day spending all that money in the way they wish. Instead, certain budgets are ring fenced away from the politicians and this gives the tax payers some confidence that the social security benefits they pay for will be delivered. As a result those trying to avoid tax there are very few and if caught doing it, the cost is enormous.
Sweden also has very strict rules around who can claim benefits and have poured money into the checking that claimants qualify. That is true of many European countries.
The stories about pensioners freezing in their beds may be correct (we'll see in March) but the media is deliberately picking extreme cases to try and criticise or justify a policy that applies to many. I'm a pensioner. I had a winter fuel allowance last year. I donated it to a food bank because frankly I'm lucky enough not to need it. I suspect many others did the same (perhaps put it into a holiday fund).
There will always be those on the cliff edge for whom the withdrawal of the payment will hurt. A phased reduction would be better. That however requires a means test and that test means hiring people to do it. There would have been no savings.
For me the issue in the UK is cultural one. People seem to expect the state to look after them and have become lazy or complacent about taking care of themselves and the people they care for, When the state starts to creak, they find it hard to accept and spend energy and time that could have been spent working, to instead find ways to keep the gravy train on the rails.
And this administration and probably all those before them back to the 1960's have allowed this culture to flourish. Pulling back from that situation is a long road littered with pain. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 14:27 19 Sep 2024
You are correct that I did not vote for Labour in the last GE. I did not vote at all because I was out of the country and Test Valley Council, bless 'em, made a mess of getting postal/proxy forms to me.
I can make some observations on tax and tax avoidance as that is my day job. (I try to settle disputes between HMRC and taxpayers).
The top 1% of earners in the UK (average £16k a month) comprise around 310,000 people. HMRC knows them all. Many these days get what amount to an audit or an in depth enquiry usually at least one year in three. Average rate of tax on this group is around 30% even after all the "loopholes" and alleged (and also unreal) scams are included.
(The bottom 10% of taxpayers earn around £780 a month and pay around 15% in tax).
The issue here however is even if all the "rich" had the money taken off them doubled, would that be put to increasing benefits or is the need actually to reduce those claiming benefits? |
| Forum
Thread | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 11:58 19 Sep 2024
There's a report in the Times today claiming that 3.9m people are on sickness benefits in the UK.
That is one in five of the working population in some ares of the country.
Various nuances are identified as possible reasons for the increase in claims. Covid of course gets a mention. Cost of living increases as well on the grounds that some who have not previously bothered to claim, now do so to offset some costs.
It is suggested also that this is a situation which other countries are not experiencing. Again, one possible reason put forward is that the level of unemployment support int he UK is lower than comparable European countries meaning people turn to sickness benefits.
(This is the Times as well so there is a suggestion that this is a problem caused by or made worse by Labour being in power rather than something that has been going on and getting worse under a decade and more of Tory mismanagement.)
Is this a problem we need to solve and how?
|
| Forum
Reply | Potential good news re Tyler Dibling
at 10:30 19 Sep 2024
You are correct that the club does help academy players and more senior players who get injured, but look a little deeper.
Any player on a contract will be insured against injury. That insurance pay out goes to the club to offset salary and medical costs. An injured player therefore costs the club very little except perhaps to fill a physio's day which he/she would have spent anyway at the club.
Be nice to think that the club does this out of respect for the player or the football industry or to conform with best practice as defined by the PL/FA but the reality is much more mercenary.
If it costs little to keep a player under treatment and he may recover enough to play again or be sold, then business economics kick in. |
| Forum
Reply | Millions of pounds a year time to strike
at 08:51 19 Sep 2024
I think the issue is that the top clubs - and therefore players - think that playing as many games as they do is damaging their physical and mental health and also reducing the standard of play in the top leagues.
There is absolutely no mention in any report I've read about this issue being about the money.
These people are athletes. If they pick up an injury, they risk being unable to work for a few days or perhaps forever. If they are playing too often, the risk of injury increases.
SO if the choice is to play for say 12 to 15 seasons at the top level at a median salary or 2 to 3 seasons at the top level for a high salary, which would you choose?
Workers in any industry have the right to strike for better conditions. That is not always more money and in this case is just fewer matches.
Far more worrying is a strike by highly trained surgeons who usually do have long careers at very high salaries. THere the issue is about pensions. |
| Forum
Reply | Potential good news re Tyler Dibling
at 08:33 19 Sep 2024
He "owes" us nothing.
He is a young professional making his way in a industry which would not think twice about leaving him in a ditch if he gets injured or loses form. If the industry (which is basically ALL the clubs) care nothing for him, why should he feel that he owes any of them anything?
Yes I hope he stays but the reality here is that the club wants to make his contract longer and better only because it increases his value on the market should we be looking to sell at the end of the season.
He's also a player who would benefit from having excellent coaches around him - and whatever we think if City, that's what they have - and to play in a side which has more confidence.
If we can see this, so can his agent, parents and anybody else who helps him.
But expecting loyalty from ANY player is bonkers. |
| Forum
Reply | Says it all…
at 11:55 18 Sep 2024
I think that "solutions" come in two flavours.
First, find a shape or a tactic that works with the players you have rather than trying to force those players into a style that is alien to them.
Second, if the players are not good enough for that style, buy players that are.
Between the inflexibility of RM and the economics of the club, I fear we are in a very uncomfortable place. |
| Forum
Reply | KWP Off
at 11:52 18 Sep 2024
Assuming he's still at full back in March/April (and not playing left mid or centre forward) chances are that our season will be a lost cause by then and we may well see a strategic injury which is hard to pin down happening so he can get his transfer after a miraculous recovery.
And I would not blame him.
He has performed many times when those around him have not and his reward is to be played out of position because the club bought another right back when what we needed was a left back.
If I were KWP I'd be pretty miffed right now. |
| Forum
Reply | Will Fate Once Again Force Russell Martin's Hand
at 15:25 16 Sep 2024
Bella Kotchap is however a delicate flower whose body or mind is liable to fail within 30 minutes of the start, a forcing yet more changes in a defence which is low on confidence. He is very much a player of last resort for me.
We can make chances (until we go behind when belief leaks out of the team like a leaky bucket) but not take them. Once we are behind, chances are harder to come by. ON the other hand every time the opposition attack, we look like conceding.
If I thought for a moment RM listened to anybody except what he sees in the mirror, I'd be tempted to ask him to pick a team which has one striker only and four defenders and five midfield players. If we can't score anyway, just stop letting goals in. A couple of 0-0 looks good right now.
BUt RM won't do that. Instead, he will not look at Burnley last season and what happened to them and will continue to to allow the defenders to hand out free goals. |
| | saint901
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 116 | | Comment Votes: | 43 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 159 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.