 | Forum
Reply | Southampton V Ipswich Town The Verdict
at 10:21 23 Sep 2024
Yes you're right. Blocking shots is part of defending and sometimes it just comes down to the question of whether you're fully committed to stopping the shot or not. |
| Forum
Reply | Southampton V Ipswich Town The Verdict
at 10:02 23 Sep 2024
"we conceded a goal that we really could have done little about"
I don't think that's right. We just needed one defender on the penalty spot, or on the edge of the box where there were 3 Ipswich players, instead of everyone being within six yards of the goal. Morsy had time to bring it down and set himself. You can't give someone that much time on the edge of the box. If he'd been hurried he probably wouldn't have struck it nearly so well.
But, if that is our chosen defensive shape for the corner, however mad, then we can't make a clearing header straight up field. Looking at the replay it was Diaz who headed it clear and he had the control to head it where he wanted. The players should be told that, if that is our chosen shape, then we don't head it straight upfield, we head it back to the wing where we had Armstrong covering. As it was, we set that strike up for them just as well as if they'd won the header.
We either had a bad plan for the set piece or we executed it badly, or both. Either way this goal could have been stopped on the training ground. Our set pieces often look a bit ragged as if we're not spending the time working on them that we should. |
| Forum
Reply | The only way Saints will win today
at 12:26 22 Sep 2024
I watched the highlights of that Fulham game earlier. It's only highlights but it's really noticeable how quickly they get the ball forward. That's the main difference with us. We should be getting the same results as Fulham, we are similar sized clubs.
Their side are mostly odds and ends (Harrison Reed anyone?) that could be playing for us, though most would have considered not good enough. Traore was the one picked out on MOTD. He cost £5m. They made one big money signing in Smith Rowe, having sold their best players to Bayern Munich and Saudi. The main reason they do well is because Marco Silva is a good coach. |
| Forum
Reply | The positives today
at 10:59 22 Sep 2024
It's true that our squad isn't great but a good manager would give us a chance of survival. A good manager creates a team that is more than the sum of its parts. RM has done the opposite. The players are better than 1 point and 2 goals from 5 relatively easy games.
One key part of that is defending well. It may not be much fun to watch but we need to get some 0-0 draws from games we should lose. Many of the goals we have conceded so far would have been prevented by doing some basic things right. Yesterday was another example from another set piece. Looks like being another RM season where his team concede masses of goals. |
| Forum
Thread | Moments of class
at 08:56 22 Sep 2024
It was a goal of pure class from Lallana and Dibling yesterday. It's no coincidence that they have both been key to the 2 PL goals that we've scored this season because they are our 2 most technically gifted players, which is what you need if you want to play the passing game in the PL.
One of our biggest problems is that our build up play is generally too slow and we end up having to pass our way through a packed defence. Only top class players can do that with any regularity in the PL. We're fortunate that Lallana and Dibling are top class (even if you still hate AL). Lallana has the technique to play for Man City and Dibling probably does too. Neither has the physicality to last 90 mins at the moment, but the technique is top level.
The problem is that we don't have enough of these top level players to play this way in the PL. But when it works, it's magic. |
| Forum
Reply | The positives today
at 08:21 22 Sep 2024
We increased our points total by a factor of infinity. |
| Forum
Reply | Southampton Already Have Their Target To Replace Russell Martin
at 10:49 21 Sep 2024
"they say that the Saints board are also concerned about the tactics employed"
How can they not have known what his tactics were? The tactics are why they fvcking employed him in the first place.
Then, after a season in charge, they gave him a new 3 year contract in the summer. Did these morons still not know what his tactics were? Did it not cross their tiny minds that these tactics might not work so well in the PL and it might be both rash and totally unnecessary to give him a new contract?
If this is true it is the final proof that our board are fvcking morons and don't have a clue what they are doing. |
| Forum
Reply | Sporting lookalikes.
at 17:39 20 Sep 2024
You dirty old man.
On a topical note, how about Kieran McKenna and Phil Neville. Are they actually the same person? |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:53 20 Sep 2024
Yes Nick. I am no fan of the Tories but most of the problems that we've faced as a country are not their fault.
I'd add to that list 2 of our biggest problems:
1. Demographics. Our aging population is the fundamental reason why we are facing problems with the public finances and part of the reason why there are so many sick, which is where this thread started.
2. Climate change. We've had to invest billions in green energy and subsidise it, while shutting down our profitable north sea energy. It needs to be done, but it is costing billions. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:47 20 Sep 2024
No I don't think they're suddenly going to invest in gold and bitcoin because they're doing it already. It'll just happen in larger numbers when there are extra incentives to do it (that's just basic economics). As stated, there are millions who own gold and bitcoin today, so that's millions who either are or will be pensioners. What's really for the birds is the idea that they will sell.
There may indeed be thousands of people who can't work out pension credit, but the millions who own gold and bitcoin are generally not the same as those earning less than £220 a week and so eligible for pension credit. Earning £220 a week is probably not enough to be described as middle class. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 12:36 20 Sep 2024
saint901, what do you mean when you say "Chasing avoidance is expensive"? Avoidance is legal isn't it, so why would they chase it?
Avoidance includes (in my case) putting savings in my ISA. Doing things like this have been actively encouraged by previous governments, so why include avoidance in the tax gap at all? Is there a notional difference between approved avoidance (e.g. ISAs) and unapproved avoidance where some complex scheme cooked up by tax accountants stretches the law? |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 10:17 20 Sep 2024
"...if you genuinely think that middle class pensioners have ready access to the gold bullion or bitcoin markets I can only suggest such a view is at best extremely unlikely and most likely simply not feasible."
Every middle class pensioner already has access to the gold and bitcoin markets and many of people own them already. If someone wants physical gold, all they need is a couple hundred quid to buy things like this:
https://bullionhouse.co.uk/product-category/100g-gold-bars/
For bitcoin all you need is a phone. The most recent surveys estimate that 5.6 million people in the UK currently own cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.
These things will only become more popular if they start taxing traditional savings. As I've explained this makes the tax unfair as the burden will fall on the law abiding middle classes. Tax avoidance will be adopted by the wealthy and tax evasion can be easily adopted by the non law abiding using routes like this. Just one of many reasons why this is a bad tax... |
| Forum
Reply | Southampton V Ipswich Town The Preview
at 09:34 20 Sep 2024
Having used my magical powers to correctly predict the lineup for the last 2 PL games (almost), I have once again delved into the mind of RM to predict the following for Saturday:
Ramsdale
Suga, THB, Bednarek, KWP
Fernandes, Downes, Big Les
Dibling, Archer, Diaz
A possible variation on that is Lallana starting instead of Big Les. If RM thinks he really needs to win this one then he might do that. Otherwise I predict the same as last week with one enforced change. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 21:58 19 Sep 2024
Yes, it's true that Scandinavian countries are reported as being happy. I'm not sure why though, how is that known? Not by looking at the data on suicide rates anyway. They all have higher suicide rates than the UK, so aren't we happier on the objective measures? But OK let's go with it anyway. The problem is that the lessons don't translate to a country like the UK.
I've worked there and I can tell you that those countries are entirely different to the UK and what works there won't necessarily work here. They are all small (the population of Denmark, Finland or Norway is only about 4 times Hampshire's) and very socially cohesive cultures (a fact that is attributed to the historically harsh winters and relatively homogenous populations). As a result they're much happier working for the common good, in contrast to this country which is far more individualistic and "nimby". They are happy to pay taxes because they can see where they're spent, unlike the UK where people don't see how they're spent and don't want them spent on the work-shy and immigrants. It's just a difference in culture that isn't going to change any time soon. What works in Scandinavia doesn't even cross the border to Germany and Holland, let alone here.
But even in Scandinavia, wealth taxes don't work. This is Norway's experience of a wealth tax as reported in the rabid right wing Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-re
So, with less tax coming in from the wealthy, they have to target the middle classes. You obviously don't have a problem with that, but see Southamptonfan's post above for a more typical reaction. As he says, the messages are all wrong and disincentivise saving. A sensible government encourages saving because then it will have less of a problem in future. That's why UK governments have followed that policy for decades.
Meanwhile, just like Southamptonfan, existing pensioners won't think it's fair that they are being punished for working hard and saving after so many years of the government telling them that's what they should do. So they won't comply. Money will indeed be converted to gold and hidden. The more tech savvy pensioners will convert cash to bitcoin instead where it will never be found. The net result is that the state will have to spend enormous sums trying to track the wealth of 40 million people who have come to see the state as their enemy, or very little tax will ever be recovered.
So yes there may well be wealth taxes because they are politically convenient but they won't work and will do more harm than good. There are better and fairer ways of raising taxes. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 17:52 19 Sep 2024
Wealth taxes don't work. That has been shown internationally. In 1990 12 European countries had wealth taxes. Today most have been abandoned and there are 3 remaining.
There are many problems with them. Maybe the biggest problem is that people who are genuinely wealthy just leave and live elsewhere, so rather than getting more tax from them you get less. So, to raise any money you have to tax the middle classes. But to do that you have to know what their wealth is which you have no way of knowing without doing a detailed audit and searching their attic for the gold bars that they have moved their money into. You need an army of hated tax inspectors for that which will cost more money than it raises.
So, they don't work but I think Labour will introduce some just because it is "red meat" as they say. A likely target will be pensioners with private pensions. They're sitting ducks because they can't hide their pensions. It wouldn't be fair but so what? The only one that would be cost effective to implement and reasonably fair would be a tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won't happen. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:54 19 Sep 2024
Undoubtedly there should be a safety net of some kind, but the big picture is that the current situation is simply unsustainable. No politician will tell you this, but their own bean counters (the OBR) say that if we carry on as we are, spending will increase beyond anything we can ever afford:
So can taxes rise to equal the spending? No, the tax burden is now at record levels at over 40% of GDP and various economic studies have shown that once you go over about 40% it is self defeating because you kill the incentives to work and create new companies. Many argue that we are seeing that already.
It is near impossible to find any area of government spending that should be cut, so what will happen instead is that lots of areas will have to be cut even though we don't want them to be. Within 10 years it will be unavoidable. |
| Forum
Reply | Cornet
at 17:34 18 Sep 2024
No but he's got a bit of brass neck |
| | Ifonly
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 108 | | Comment Votes: | 367 | | Prediction League: | 4 | | TOTAL: | 479 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.