Jump to content

blandy

Moderators
  • Content Count

    14,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

blandy last won the day on March 25

blandy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,716 Excellent

About blandy

  • Rank
    Player Manager

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @blandyp

Profile Information

  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Fettling, Cricket, Ale, Music.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,735 profile views
  1. blandy

    Tickets

    You can (normally), but I don't see how that helps - you'd be behind yourself in the queue? (unless it's before the window opens, when you'd also be ahead of yourself in the queue - Quantum logging in.
  2. I confess to being confused by what he's saying. I think (perhaps wrongly?) that he's missed the context, or committed it as it doesn't match the underlying point. Previously, going back a long time there was a GE, a party got the most seats. Their MPs then chose their leader and the leader was invited by the Queen etc..... When the tories change leader mid parliament, they follow whatever their processes at the time to choose a new leader (and by default, PM). With Major, the MPs were the only people the process used to pick the leader. More recently members chose from a final 2 (after the MPs have whittled it down to 2). When Hammy ran away, Gove knifed Boris, Leadsome destructed...etc so there was no choice to offer to the party members. The same process applies now. When Brown took over from Blair, it was also a stitch up between MPs (I think). But to say "Previously the choice of prime minister has been determined by MPs, either because the majority of the MPs elected by us have been from a party headed by that person or, between elections, because those elected MPs have chosen someone else. The MPs have no right to delegate that choice to party members, thereby removing the decision from the elected and accountable to the unelected and unaccountable and cutting the wider electorate out of the process. I think the idea it's "unconstitutional" is wrong (given my limited knowledge of the unwritten constitution). I think the claim that "The MPs have no right to delegate that choice to party members" is not valid. They have that right, it is in the party's rules. I'm unaware/ignorant of any constitutional precedent or ruling that says they don't have that right. So what is he claiming, really, that stands up to better knowledge than mine?
  3. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    Is it greed? It's definitely stupid, but there's a longer term problem, going back decades, that the UK doesn't have our own companies in this area. GEC used to, but was run into the ground by Weinstock and the remnants were merged with BAE. BAE does a lot in cyber-security etc., but doesn't make kit in this field - 5G comms. So we have to go foreign, which is not ideal.
  4. I like the way they've integrated calculus into a pub sign.
  5. blandy

    Tickets

    keep trying the phone, also try https://twitter.com/AVFCSupport - @AVFCSupport on twitter.
  6. You might be right Darren, it might not happen and I might be mistaken to imagine otherwise. Though couldn’t I argue that animal welfare standards in farming in the west have risen, and that this is basically down to campaigning and demand from the population? I’d wonder whether, as per the discussion point, if more people go veggie or vegan that further pressure on meat producers, who would already have reduced volumes of critters, wouldn’t also lead to higher welfare standards, not just because a more animal sympathetic society would demand it, but also because they could maker larger profit margins? i think you’re right about radical evangelicals not having the effect, but wider society changing their outlook might do.
  7. This is the internet, and no one EVER exhibits strong feelings on it. Don’t you know ANYTHING?
  8. They'd be dog food, cat food etc. Thing is, leaving aside the moral aspects for a moment, if more and more people go veggie/vegan, then there's a gradual reduction in the scale of animal farming for meat etc. So if a chicken farmer currently has 10,000 chickens he keeps for meat, and he kills them all each year, when the demand for chicken reduces, he will need to keep only 9000 the next year, then 8000, then etc. The place that keeps chickens to see the chicks to chicken meat farmers will reduce the amount of chicken it uses and so on. after a few years the overall number in the chain will be lower, but with no culling for no purpose - some will still be killed for dog food, or whatever. Smaller scale means higher standards of welfare can be adhered to..everyone is better off, really, in terms of quality of life and eco footprint.
  9. Of course, any ownership, if of bad intention, could lead a club into real trouble whether or not the club and the ground are owned by separate entities. It's absolutely clear from their actions to date that our owners are acting diligently and carefully and in the best interests of the club. Their record is basically unimpeachable to date. I've no reason to think that will change. The concern, in general for football clubs, is that should the club ownership and the ground ownership not be controlled by the same person(s) conflict may arise. Where that happens the result is universally bad. Coventry, Charlton, Palace, Brighton....etc. As such, splitting the ownership is something I don't like. In the current instance and specific to Villa, if this were to happen to avoid FFP penalties, then it's arguably the least bad short term means of doing so, from a footballing perspective. But it is short term and not without longer term consequences, and furthermore the underlying issues won't go away without other steps being taken. It's a gamble. Assuming good interntions, the gamble is we go up, stabilise and then buy back the ground in a situation where the book loss from doing so does not breach any rules (the Premier League doesn't have the same rules as the EFL re sustainability. But it's a gamble and has potential adverse consequences, as I see it.
  10. Yes, all of that is true. The issue isn’t the accounting ruse, or the behaviour of the current owners. The issue for me is the possibility, or risk, of future ownership behaviour. An accounting ruse to get round having broken FFP rules is one thing, I’m really talking about separating the assets of the club from the club. That then almost invites trouble down the line. If our owners transfer the ownership between their various companies and later, following rule changes, or promotion, or increased revenues buy it back, re-transfer it back to being part of the football club business then fine. Were being, apparently, forced to do that because of our (allleged) breaking of sustainability rules. Derby did it, others have or will, now it’s the latest get out of FFP rule breaking jail ruse. It’s almost nailed on that one or more clubs will suffer unforeseen consequences for doing it. It’ll destroy at least one club, I’d wager.
  11. What I’m trying to demonstrate is that if Wes and Nas split the ground from the club, and then decide they’ve lost interest in villa, the club could be bought by someone with mad plans for his new NEC mega bowl (say) so he doesn’t want to buy the ground, only the club. Wes and Nas sell him the club, he has us playing at his new dome, it goes wrong, it’s not viable and there’s a broke club that doesn’t even own its own stadium. There are sadly many examples of clubs selling or not owning their grounds and then being in deep poo. Coventry, Brighton and others. As an idea it’s got huge drawbacks. It’s not guaranteed to go wrong, but it’s a risk. Not right now, not with good owners of good intent, but unfortunately these things can change over time. It’s far from risk free, i was trying to demonstrate one scenario to illustrate that.
  12. Hello, my name is P. Developer. I have a plan, I want to build a multi purpose sports/casino/music venue by the NEC. so I need a sports franchise to make it work, financially - I’m taking a big gamble with my finances with this venue. So anyway I want to buy the AV franchise and play it’s games at my sports dome. Personally I don’t follow football, but I heard Villa is a historied franchise. what could possibly go wrong?
  13. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    Just as a general point, if you want to persuade people, sometimes you have to give them a reason on their terms, on their favoured ground. So if you want to persuade a militaristic, republican, or someone with relatives in the military, or etc. then saying how your "thing" might be beneficial to their interests is much more likely to succeed in persuading them that to say (in this example) "climate change is real and will affect poor people in far off lands really badly" - when the audience doesn't give a stuff about that consequence.
  14. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    They say he has never worked for them as part of the Syria Douma FFM - my mistake. But I take your point. I don't take the same view as you write about the Chlorine. The OPCW report as I read it said I completely accept your last comment about the denial - it looks like a non-denial denial - "he wasn't at any time part of the FFM isn't the same as "it's not a genuine document" - that seems to imply it is probably genuine. The reason why it was not used could range from "it doesn't support our preconceived verdict and we need to get something that does" (very bad) through "internally there's been strong doubt on the nature of the work, let's get a second opinion" (if that were so, you'd expect the actual report to discuss or mention the conflicting possibilities, so still bad) to "We don't want to say so publicly, but he got it badly wrong and has lost his way" (very unlikely) to "it's a fake" (now, also unlikely). So Yes, there is fog. No one comes out of it well. Like I said earlier - it all makes it impossible to find the actual truth for the likes of us.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â