');

blandy

Moderators
  • Content count

    12,869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

blandy last won the day on March 19

blandy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,590 Excellent

About blandy

  • Rank
    Player Manager

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @blandyp

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,453 profile views
  1. blandy

    Villa and FFP

    No. It’s a genuine factor. It’s not going to go away, or be got round.
  2. blandy

    Villa and FFP

    No need to apologise. If you want to become better informed, then maybe have a read of the EFL profit and sustainability rules ( web search that phrase and read the appendix F result, or look at some of the articles on a website such as http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk they have a more “user friendly” explanation http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/-profit-and-sustainability-ffp-tests-in-championship-2016-17
  3. blandy

    Villa and FFP

    It’s nothing to do with EFL FFP though and has no relevance to our situation
  4. blandy

    All-Purpose Religion Thread

    I’d think they are religious, because they worship their God. They follow rules based around their interpretation of what their God requires of them. But I take the point that they’re a bit “different”.
  5. blandy

    All-Purpose Religion Thread

    No, it doesn’t. Believing in an afterlife, or even in some kind of celestial force or being isn’t the same thing as having religion. Religion is all about worship, about behaving according to a set of rules or guidelines, about devotion...etc. belief in the existence of “Gods” isn’t in itself “religion”, until or unless you start worshipping those God dudes. Then it’s too late, you’ve been religioned.
  6. blandy

    Time for a takeover

    I'm only speculating, but with the desperation for an injection of funds to pay bills to avoid administration, now seems like a good time to buy in - the price would have been affected by the desperation. Having already hocked off just about everything possible to stave off creditors Xia was desperate. I don't perceive him to be malicious, or a force for ill, just to have been reckless in his approach, albeit with the best intentions of gaining promotion. I think he genuinely has caught the bug, so to speak. He wants Villa to prosper both for his own ends and also because he's become a fan. If you're a hugely wealthy person, looking to get involved in a football club, the EFL has become a place where there are some potential bargains. The Prem clubs are too wealthy and thus very expensive with the top ones out of reach and the middling to lower ones come with a risk of relegation and a huge drop in value. The likes of Leeds and Villa and Sheff Wed represent opportunity to get hold of a potential big club with all the associated fanbase and tradition and commercial opportunities, for a knock down cost. Villa's finances have been a mess, FFP is a burden, but IF someone can continue to rectify the financial mess, get the club "straight", then there's a ready made Premier league club in waiting available for 10s of millions instead of 100s of millions.
  7. blandy

    Villa and FFP

    The first thing it does, is to alleviate the immediate problems of being able to pay the wages and taxes etc. That's not FFP specific, but it was a huge issue and risk of Administration was real. In terms of FFP, unfortunately the rules is the rules. As I posted earlier today, and as others have posted, Villa has a double FFP whammy this season. We receive an income drop of 18 million from the premier league parachute payments and we also get a reduced allowance for acceptable FFP losses (it reduces by 22 million) . So for the purposes of FFP we're 40 million down. all the tea in chin...Egypt can't cover that. It's notable i the statement from our new overlords and masters that they mention "sustainable". That's got to happen, both for reasons of sanity and for FFP. By the way, next season we get no parachute payment at all, so another 15 million drop in income. The clubs wage bill has to drop from around 50-60 million last season to probably about 25 million this season and we need to somehow try and generate increases in income from other areas. The playing squad needs to be much cheaper, much less costly. Which doesn't automatically equate to weaker, but it certainly equates to minimal high earners.
  8. blandy

    General Chat

    Someone's hidden your Sports watch? it must be a wind up (One for the analogue generation, there. You're welcome)
  9. blandy

    General Chat

    It's morrissette
  10. blandy

    Jack Grealish

    There isn't a chance it is less than that. It's likely to be a bit more than that if anything. It's complicated, but last season FFP allowed us to lose 61million in total ove rthat season plus the previous 2. Next season FFP will allow us to lose 39 million over the season, plus the previous 2. So that's a change of £22 million. On top of that our income from parachute money drops from 33 million to 15 million - another 18 million. So just those 2 factors add up to a 40 million swing for the worse. Then we need to consider whether things like gate money and TV money are going to increase or decrease next season. The odds are for a drop in them, too. The situation is grim.
  11. I think 3 things about that reply. Firstly, yes I agree with a fair part of it. Secondly, @bickster and I agree on so many things, it's interesting (for me at least) to explore an area where we might have slightly different takes on it, thirdly yes, the document they've produced and its falws - it's basically a storm in a teacup and you're right it's not worthy of hyperbolic acustations of holocaust denying and such like, But the flip side of that is this kind of scenario Everyone: "You've been caught many times doing anti-semitism. You need to stop, behave yourself and abide by the rules" Labour : "OK, Can I examine the rules?" E: "Yes, here's the IHRA rules" L: "OK, I'll adopt those rules, apart from the bit about comparing Israeli policy to the Nazis and the bit about claiming the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and the bit about..." E: "Oh, FFS!" And that's their problem (IMO)
  12. I disagree. The market was back where it was before the speech very shortly afterwards. I percieve the essence being "Ooh May is going to clarify some stuff, that's good, that's give certainty, which we like, ooh, her she is talking [pound goes up]"...then "well on digesting what she said, it's not what we needed [pound goes back down]" in consequence I think the fleeting spike was caused by hope then disappointment and Johnson was wrong to imply the speech (contents) were recieved positively by the markets. They weren't (based on the value of the pound).
  13. Both you previously and your Labour blogger person have said they did leave out some examples. In their example section, Labour omits 4 of the examples. It's true, you're right that Labour then adds their own (different) interpretations of some of the missing 4 examples in the next part of their document and here they they either attempt to give extra context/ or to allow wriggle room (delete as you see fit). Why omit the words in bold - such as "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." or "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." My point isn't that Labour's version is "wrong" in what it does say, It's that the established version would have been the easiest and most sensible thing to use and that their version in some aspects is watered down - wrong in what it doesn't say..
  14. It has taken out 4 "examples" to my reading. In itself that's just foolish, rather than sinister. If you take the charitable view, as your quoted blogger person does, then everything's in good faith and people have different opinions...etc. etc. But for a party with a history of repeated anti-semitism and then not taking adequate action, it was (IMO) absolutely typical that they would come up with an "adjusted" version of things, rather than accepting and following the established version. It was politically stupid and totally avoidable.
  15. The "working definition" is indeed the same. The "problem" as you posted earlier from that person's opinion piece, is that Labour has taken some but not all of the IHRA examples and left out others. To go to all that trouble, there must be some reasoning behind excluding those 4. I genuinely don't see what's problematic with any of them, or see any grounds for leaving them out. Every single one is a good example of clear anti-semitism and ought to have been left in. IMO. Adding additional examples could have been possible, but there's no need. Not adopting the IHRA definition in its entirety was IMO both foolish in terms of Labour having a problem both with antisemitism and dealing with antisemitism, so a focus would (rightly) be on their new process and rules. Adopting an kind of international standard definition would have been wise and bulletproof. Fiddling about with it to make it more "palatable" to a faction of Labour's more obsessed "thinkers" (sarcasm) on Israel was a mistake and always likely to backfire. "We're not going to use the same framework as everyone else, we're going to adjust it for our specific situation" is just (at best) niaive under the circs.