Na then Forest.....

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Aye & far more folk were killed in the mining industry pre Nationalisation so not sure statistics regarding railway fatalities are especially relevant. Now if that were applied to, say the armed forces it may have little more relevance ?

 

[MagnifiqueShorehamStreet]

Gruaniad = 'superbly executed and fundamentally accurate'. Yet there is a climb down just after the headline with wrong people fingered in the 'investigation' too.

Well done.

Look, if you don't understand how defence support contracts work or the diversification and structure of big defence delivery groups, then fine. I've tried to abbreviate it and any mature, level-headed individual would deduce from my account how unionisation (in the negative sense), protectionism and similar chicanery can produce a loss making, regressive and static output. If you think those qualities are wrong, then clearly you don't understand the concept of 'growth' and 'incentivisation'. Which figures. The left always have had problems understanding this.

And yeah 'interfacing'. It's not some modern phrase. These days much of muchness is project managed, using layered, accountable, digital systems and finely tuned practices made so by success in commercial sector companies, rather than writing vague, unbudgeted job requests over a ruler and posting them in circular mailing systems, like it used to be in 'the old days'. I suppose this process would blind the fuck out of you, which is a bit sad because loads of your fellow ex-matelot colleagues manage it with aplomb, and wear BAE badged apparel, guilt-free whilst they are fixing and maintaining ships and delivering contracted services to the crown. See also Hythe Marine, General Electric, Rolls Royce, Warstila, Babcock, Furmanite and dozens of other contractors attached to warship construction and support. Jobs for literally hundreds of thousands, rather than six thousand ostensibly recalcitrant dockies. Can't think of any of them who were involved in the Al Yammah deals, though. Nice of you to characterise and offer ad hominem where needed. rest assured when I was delivering, shit got fixed and if it wasn't, it had a plan for it, rather than the old days when everything was mitigated into time and a half or more, or simply fixed by matelots themselves. Did a lot of that as well as I remember. That is a FACT (love it how people use capitals with that word, like it reinforces the FACT) Can't actually imagine how a 'scourge of company' like BAE Systems would deliver such services under any other system than capitalism in honesty. I suppose your nirvana would be everything back in public ownership such as the 'dockyards' ... and 'British Rail', even though we killed far more people on the rail network under that system than we did under privatisation. There's a FACT for ya.

pommpey

Haven’t you got anything else to do, on such a lovely day except endlessly pedal your claptrap on a football forum?

 

[Once a Blade..]

Well actually it’s not a FACT pommpey but just another of your ill conceived opinions; there’s a argument for public ownership of the rail network and only last month ScotRail moved back under public ownership for the first time in 25 years due to appalling service provision. We’ll watch on that one. As for rail provision in Germany and France it is run 100% by state owned companies and infinitely better than the rail network in this country.

 

[pommpey]

Well actually it’s not a FACT pommpey but just another of your ill conceived opinions; there’s a argument for public ownership of the rail network and only last month ScotRail moved back under public ownership for the first time in 25 years due to appalling service provision. We’ll watch on that one. As for rail provision in Germany and France it is run 100% by state owned companies and infinitely better than the rail network in this country.

And the infrastructure development, policy and funding is a completely different model than the UKs. Tell me why their model would work in this country.

And yes, it is a FACT. Go look it up. Since the removal of franchises and nationalisation after WWII through to the mid nineties year for year, British Rail killed a lot of passengers, needlessly, because government departments are characteristically shit at running businesses, and do so using assumptions, out of date techniques, schonky accountability, wasteful spending and wishful-thinking. FYI, from 1948 to 1994, there were an average of 15 killed 110 people injured on Britain's railways. I haven't got the figures for the past four years but from 1995 to 2018 the average death toll was 3.69 per year with 57 injured.

Let's not even discuss Beechings Cuts either. They didn't half remove a lot of passengers from their rail pleasures because the nationalised industry was haemorrhaging cash

Talk to me again about 'argument for public ownership' with attrition rates like that.

pommpey

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

Always surprised at the amount of people who haven't seen Brassed Off.

 

[pommpey]

Haven’t you got anything else to do, on such a lovely day except endlessly pedal your claptrap on a football forum?

Look. If you don't understand the argument, or can't find anything grown up to contribute, why not just 'say nothing'?

pommpey

 

[Once a Blade..]

And the infrastructure development, policy and funding is a completely different model than the UKs. Tell me why their model would work in this country.

And yes, it is a FACT. Go look it up. Since the removal of franchises and nationalisation after WWII through to the mid nineties year for year, British Rail killed a lot of passengers, needlessly, because government departments are characteristically shit at running businesses, and do so using assumptions, out of date techniques, schonky accountability, wasteful spending and wishful-thinking. FYI, from 1948 to 1994, there were an average of 15 killed 110 people injured on Britain's railways. I haven't got the figures for the past four years but from 1995 to 2018 the average death toll was 3.69 per year with 57 injured.

Let's not even discuss Beechings Cuts either. They didn't half remove a lot of passengers from their rail pleasures because the nationalised industry was haemorrhaging cash

Talk to me again about 'argument for public ownership' with attrition rates like that.

pommpey

“And the infrastructure development, policy and funding is a completely different model than the UKs. Tell me why their model would work in this country.”

Because it works in their respective countries

 

[Ludgblade64]

The boiler switchover is part of net zero pledges. I don’t agree that it will make a difference that it’s being sold as, but nor do i believe that electric cars will do that either.

Gas and oil both come from the North Sea, they also come from the USA, Canada, Africa, the Middle East and Russia.

However, the oil and gas prices have increased considerably as a direct result of the conflict in Ukraine and as a result of uncertainty of supply.

UK production is at a very low level, this is as a result of pressure from greens over the last decade and the lack of investment in UK offshore production. This can be changed but it won’t be immediate.

All of Europe is panicking over supply of gas, which is the predominant energy source provided into Europe and this comes via Russia and it was cheap - because it came in huge volumes This risk means that everyone is scrambling to get gas via other sources - which is not as cost effective and result available

We haven’t exported Gas to Norway since 2015 and that was in extremely limited volumes as we import from them them via Langeled and others.

There are huge deposits of oil and gas and it’s easy to talk of them as one resource. They’re also extracted in very different ways and with technologies. The known and recoverable oil reserves in the 1970-80’s were very conservatively estimated. To what they are known as now and what is recoverable. The technology used nowadays to repressurise an oil well can recover considerably more.

The problem in the uk compared to other parts of the world, Saudi and Iraq as good examples is cost of recovery. North Sea cost of recovery is in excess of $50 a barrel, whereas Iraq is below $10 so it makes more sense when the oil price is low not to exploit the North Sea reserves. Given that Brent is at $113 today and has been consistently above $80 since the start of the year it’s no wonder we’re looking to open up more fields in the North Sea

We get about 4% of gas/oil from Russia, but we should not be paying the high prices, as we are seeing at present, it is profiteering.

We are reopening the oil fields since its now profitable for use to extract the oil and gas, I am well aware of the extraction methods, technology moves on, same with coal, many products can be made from a lump of coal.

I don't understand, if you have a resource, then use it, if not then use a viable energy source like nuclear, because renewables are not the answer, unless a recent technology such as nuclear batteries can be used for electric cars, with an half life of 20,000 years

It's interesting that most of our goods that come from China, use coal fired power stations, for their manufacturing requirements. Germany are building coal fired power stations, as a country we are very short term, we are now as a country paying the price, wait till winter comes, it will be chaos, I feel for the people of this country.

We need governments that contain engineers, scientists and technologists, I know that have select committees, but they never see the bigger picture, at the ground level.

 

[MagnifiqueShorehamStreet]

Look. If you don't understand the argument, or can't find anything grown up to contribute, why not just 'say nothing'?

pommpey

Apparently, not then!
Hope you find some friends soon.It’s a lovely world out there!

 

[pommpey]

“And the infrastructure development, policy and funding is a completely different model than the UKs. Tell me why their model would work in this country.”

Because it works in their respective countries

Jesus.

Germany, politically and economically, is a different country to the UK. It has a n an entirely different system of government, policy making, funding and approach.

So tell me (because you brought this up and you'll know) How do we transpose Germany's model onto our model. Detail please, or be damned by your ignorance.

And if you work that one out, then give us a solution for healthcare, schools, law and order too, because people like you constantly tell us 'they are doing it better' without any such detail or context.

pommpey

 

[SwissBlade]

We get about 4% of gas/oil from Russia, but we should not be paying the high prices, as we are seeing at present, it is profiteering.

We are reopening the oil fields since its now profitable for use to extract the oil and gas, I am well aware of the extraction methods, technology moves on, same with coal, many products can be made from a lump of coal.

I don't understand, if you have a resource, then use it, if not then use a viable energy source like nuclear, because renewables are not the answer, unless a recent technology such as nuclear batteries can be used for electric cars, with an half life of 20,000 years

It's interesting that most of our goods that come from China, use coal fired power stations, for their manufacturing requirements. Germany are building coal fired power stations, as a country we are very short term, we are now as a country paying the price, wait till winter comes, it will be chaos, I feel for the people of this country.

We need governments that contain engineers, scientists and technologists, I know that have select committees, but they never see the bigger picture, at the ground level.

As i've mentioned on the WWIII thread, we currently get 4% Gas Imports from Russia. However, since the start of this year, comparible to previous years (using only Jan and Feb data) we are seeing lower import levels of Gas. Oil is approx 9% and this is being phased out during this year. The two shouldn't be lumped together because a) they are priced differently and b) the uses are widely different.

Global Oil prices are high at the moment due to demand being affected by uncertainty of supply. This has been caused to spike recently because of the Ukraine conflict and the production levels being kept fairly low so that the bottom doesn't drop out of Oil completely. This is not about profiteering, its about ensuring that prices are at a level to ensure that developing and producing Oil is viable. Otherwise no Operators would be interested to start extracting oil. Gas prices are also following a similar trend because of the war and we use Gas for energy supply. However, the other reason is Net Zero.

Over the 10-15 years we've known what our 2020 energy demands would be in the UK, however, the government (not just in the UK) have bought into the Green agenda and have pushed and pushed to be at the forefront of Netzero to meet these ambitious targets. Gas was not considered green previously, but the UK and EU have now declared Gas as a green energy source, this has happened in the last few weeks.

Germany, quite simply don't have a choice but to go with Gas. They declared post Fukishima that they would close down their Nuclear facilities and their entire programme, despite their facilities being at a much lower risk than the Japanese facilities as the generators and back up generators are not so close to the coastline and nor are they in a seismic region. Germany relies heavily on Gas from Russia, they have Nord Stream 1 which is still fully operational and is supplying much of Europe via Germany with Natural gas via 2 x 48" Dia 1200km pipelines (Nord Stream 2 was shut in before it was operational as a gesture). Why did Germany and the neighbouring countries buy into Nord Stream, Nord Stream 2 and Turk(South Stream)? Because it has been cheaper than sourcing LNG and building the infrastructure such as regasification or FSRU facilities.

Poland, conversly are currently trying to diversify away from coal, despite huge resources and investments into coal, they are building a Gas pipeline from Norway, via Denmark and the Baltic sea to Poland to help switchover from Coal to Gas.

China is a vastly different story. They don't have or adhere to the same restrictions as we do in Europe. A good mate of mine is working on a number of projects in South Africa constructing coal power stations, again they don't follow the same environmental rules as we do.

Gas, again is keeping a high price due to demand. Qatar, Algeria, USA, Canada, Mozambique and Australia all have huge Gas resources and LNG capability, but it must be tankered to Europe.

As well as the UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Turkey all have Gas fields, the cost of recovery is higher, but not only this, due to the huge investment and drive for Net Zero, we've not started any new Gas Fields for years in the North Sea. And since we don't have the facility to pop and get a tanker full of LNG at a days notice, contingency of coal has been used sparingly when the renewables are not generating enough energy and Gas is at over 50% of the overall supply. This is so we don't run out of Gas completely.

I spoke to an Energy expert recently, Israel has huge Gas Fields in the Eastern Med, their costs of recovery are ok and in the region there is also Cypriot Gas and Egyptian (as well as Libyan further along). The proposed "East Med Pipeline" which would take gas from Israel to Cyprus, Crete, Greece and Italy has been deemed unviable by the USA and has lost EU support, based on Cost. However, the cost would be €8 Billion (same as Nord Stream 1 and 2) but this is not the real issue. It becomes unviable because a) it would take 5 years to complete and bring into operations and b) it would also need a lifespan of 20-30 years to ensure that it was investable (despite the cost of €8 Billion being repayable in just 1-2 years). The current appetite in the EU is for renewables and not for green energy like Gas. So to think that Coal would be seen as a better option is extremely unlikely.

The problem that the UK will have in winter is storage. Whereas Germany have some huge Gas storage tanks (which were operated by GazProm up until February and deliberatly run down to around 13% capacity), which they will continue to replenish during the summer to ensure that they have enough gas for winter. The UK doesn't have the same facilities.

The future will most probably lie with Gas, Hydrogen and Nuclear and some renewables. Carbon Capture hubs in Humberside and Teeside have already been given the go ahead to pump CO2 offshore and then extract the hydrogen.

 

[Once a Blade..]

And this comes back to the original point. As a nation we had opportunities especially under Thatcher and following Tory government’s to adopt an approach where business and governments engaged with workers for the greater/greatest good, but we didn’t and instead smashed the unions and with it the potential of dialogue and working together, systems that are especially central under German and Scandinavian governance. I’m not as fatalistic as you but capitalism as it is in this country is failing, workers are alienated and there’s no real sense of equality. But this will change, it has to.

 

[Keef Chedwyn]

As i've mentioned on the WWIII thread, we currently get 4% Gas Imports from Russia. However, since the start of this year, comparible to previous years (using only Jan and Feb data) we are seeing lower import levels of Gas. Oil is approx 9% and this is being phased out during this year. The two shouldn't be lumped together because a) they are priced differently and b) the uses are widely different.

Global Oil prices are high at the moment due to demand being affected by uncertainty of supply. This has been caused to spike recently because of the Ukraine conflict and the production levels being kept fairly low so that the bottom doesn't drop out of Oil completely. This is not about profiteering, its about ensuring that prices are at a level to ensure that developing and producing Oil is viable. Otherwise no Operators would be interested to start extracting oil. Gas prices are also following a similar trend because of the war and we use Gas for energy supply. However, the other reason is Net Zero.

Over the 10-15 years we've known what our 2020 energy demands would be in the UK, however, the government (not just in the UK) have bought into the Green agenda and have pushed and pushed to be at the forefront of Netzero to meet these ambitious targets. Gas was not considered green previously, but the UK and EU have now declared Gas as a green energy source, this has happened in the last few weeks.

Germany, quite simply don't have a choice but to go with Gas. They declared post Fukishima that they would close down their Nuclear facilities and their entire programme, despite their facilities being at a much lower risk than the Japanese facilities as the generators and back up generators are not so close to the coastline and nor are they in a seismic region. Germany relies heavily on Gas from Russia, they have Nord Stream 1 which is still fully operational and is supplying much of Europe via Germany with Natural gas via 2 x 48" Dia 1200km pipelines (Nord Stream 2 was shut in before it was operational as a gesture). Why did Germany and the neighbouring countries buy into Nord Stream, Nord Stream 2 and Turk(South Stream)? Because it has been cheaper than sourcing LNG and building the infrastructure such as regasification or FSRU facilities.

Poland, conversly are currently trying to diversify away from coal, despite huge resources and investments into coal, they are building a Gas pipeline from Norway, via Denmark and the Baltic sea to Poland to help switchover from Coal to Gas.

China is a vastly different story. They don't have or adhere to the same restrictions as we do in Europe. A good mate of mine is working on a number of projects in South Africa constructing coal power stations, again they don't follow the same environmental rules as we do.

Gas, again is keeping a high price due to demand. Qatar, Algeria, USA, Canada, Mozambique and Australia all have huge Gas resources and LNG capability, but it must be tankered to Europe.

As well as the UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Turkey all have Gas fields, the cost of recovery is higher, but not only this, due to the huge investment and drive for Net Zero, we've not started any new Gas Fields for years in the North Sea. And since we don't have the facility to pop and get a tanker full of LNG at a days notice, contingency of coal has been used sparingly when the renewables are not generating enough energy and Gas is at over 50% of the overall supply. This is so we don't run out of Gas completely.

I spoke to an Energy expert recently, Israel has huge Gas Fields in the Eastern Med, their costs of recovery are ok and in the region there is also Cypriot Gas and Egyptian (as well as Libyan further along). The proposed "East Med Pipeline" which would take gas from Israel to Cyprus, Crete, Greece and Italy has been deemed unviable by the USA and has lost EU support, based on Cost. However, the cost would be €8 Billion (same as Nord Stream 1 and 2) but this is not the real issue. It becomes unviable because a) it would take 5 years to complete and bring into operations and b) it would also need a lifespan of 20-30 years to ensure that it was investable (despite the cost of €8 Billion being repayable in just 1-2 years). The current appetite in the EU is for renewables and not for green energy like Gas. So to think that Coal would be seen as a better option is extremely unlikely.

The problem that the UK will have in winter is storage. Whereas Germany have some huge Gas storage tanks (which were operated by GazProm up until February and deliberatly run down to around 13% capacity), which they will continue to replenish during the summer to ensure that they have enough gas for winter. The UK doesn't have the same facilities.

The future will most probably lie with Gas, Hydrogen and Nuclear and some renewables. Carbon Capture hubs in Humberside and Teeside have already been given the go ahead to pump CO2 offshore and then extract the hydrogen.

Gas nonce

 

[Addison]

It is really interesting reading Pompey, I don't agree with a lot of it, but I can see where you're coming from and I do bow to the fact that you've lived through it. However back to today and I notice you're critical of the left in Labour, but then look back on when Labour was centre-left, under Blair, that era is largely criticised by many other than, ironically many Tories, and obviously Blairites. I'm a member of Labour so naturally I have an interest. I don't agree with everything on the left, but at the same time I do not want a return to Blairite politics as an alternative to Boris, so when you say we need to get our crap together, I actually think that it doesn't mean we rid Labour of the left but we embrace those from the left and at the same time those on the centre should be respected also, it's a broad church, and I believe Andy Burnham is the leader we need, Stammer is someone few relate to, even though much of what he says I agree with and he's worked hard to get where he has.

I disagree on Kinnock, a man who I liked, but I agree totally on John Smith, a real tragedy there.

Anyway, many on here will not want anymore politics, so I'll ask what's your score predictions for tomorrow? I'm going 2 - 1 Blades (heart) 3 - 1 Forest (head).


Another really interesting post Addison, and the part on the UDM is why there's bitterness for many from that era towards Notts. It is interesting that South Derbyshire were also part of the UDM I believe and yet you never hear scabs said to Derby fans, not sure why there?

South Derbyshire Area had as little as 2/3 working pits left at the time of the 84 strike. They were nearer to Leicester than Derby Booker. Notts took the brunt because they had the most pits working, the officials that set up the UDM were part of the Nottingham NUM and Nottingham area pits tended to be the most profitable and capable of earning higher productivity bonus. The feeling was they didn't want to come out because of the bonus they were earning.

The irony is the UDM set up in Mansfield not Nottingham. There's a lot of angst between Chesterfield and Mansfield fans over this apart from the local rivalry. North Derbyshire pits supported the strike. When Mansfield played at the Lane a few years back in the cup they got the scab chants.

 

[knowsnowt]

Someone would, if I didn't.

 

[SwissBlade]

Gas nonce

Been my livelyhood for 19 years, so it's worth my while to keep up to speed on whats going on.... especially as i've worked on all the 'baddie's' pipelines since 2008 (hence Swissblade) and i've worked the last two years on one of the 'goodies' pipelines

 

[pommpey]

And this comes back to the original point. As a nation we had opportunities especially under Thatcher and following Tory government’s to adopt an approach where business and governments engaged with workers for the greater/greatest good, but we didn’t and instead smashed the unions and with it the potential of dialogue and working together, systems that are especially central under German and Scandinavian governance. I’m not as fatalistic as you but capitalism as it is in this country is failing, workers are alienated and there’s no real sense of equality. But this will change, it has to.

Um, right through the 80s the nation grew economically and unemployment rate as a percentage of the workforce fell from it's peak at 13% in 1981 to half of that by 1985. So I have no idea what more businesses and government can do to engage with workers for the greater good. You are still also a bit light on detail as to the wholesale damage your unions did to the industrial reputation and economy in the years preceding Thatcher. Like I say, it is that and that alone which gave us her and the Friedmanist policies she embodied. Her reign saw GDP rise 23%, 30% more on the NHS, 13% on Education and over 50% more on policing and crime. Quite what more they could have achieved is a moot point and if the seventies were a low watermark in industrial relations, since 1985 and the end of Scargill, it has been far, far better, has it not?

And please, stop citing Scandanavia and Germany as examples of supreme government. Unless you have a template how to jigsaw their systems into ours ... in many ways different - without long term economic damage or turmoil and still protect jobs and livelihoods, then what you say is simply blowing in the wind.

Capitalism has given us stability with better equality of opportunity. If you think socialism has answers and doesn't wreck the fabric of life then let's hear the periods when a real socialist government ran this country when it all worked. You can't, can you?

pommpey

 

[Booker4]

Um, right through the 80s the nation grew economically and unemployment rate as a percentage of the workforce fell from it's peak at 13% in 1981 to half of that by 1985. So I have no idea what more businesses and government can do to engage with workers for the greater good. You are still also a bit light on detail as to the wholesale damage your unions did to the industrial reputation and economy in the years preceding Thatcher. Like I say, it is that and that alone which gave us her and the Friedmanist policies she embodied. Her reign saw GDP rise 23%, 30% more on the NHS, 13% on Education and over 50% more on policing and crime. Quite what more they could have achieved is a moot point and if the seventies were a low watermark in industrial relations, since 1985 and the end of Scargill, it has been far, far better, has it not?

And please, stop citing Scandanavia and Germany as examples of supreme government. Unless you have a template how to jigsaw their systems into ours ... in many ways different - without long term economic damage or turmoil and still protect jobs and livelihoods, then what you say is simply blowing in the wind.

Capitalism has given us stability with better equality of opportunity. If you think socialism has answers and doesn't wreck the fabric of life then let's hear the periods when a real socialist government ran this country when it all worked. You can't, can you?

pommpey

You don't rate socialism Pommpey, that's fair enough, I don't rate capitalism if unregulated which is how capitalism works, and I've seen the effects there from right wing governments that have no interest in wealth distribution. There's many problems with capitalism, the inequality and poverty it causes are well known in countries of extreme wealth because capitalism doesn't share it's wealth downwards, despite what many will say.

Let's look at football as an example. The the PL is driven by extreme wealth by a system that wants to spend as much as it can without any regulation, to continually grow as required by a capitalist model, it has resulted in frequently questionable ownership, a total lack of wealth distribution which has screwed over the EFL and the money generated goes to the players at extreme levels, and to agents. There's no interest in fair ticket prices from the PL, no interest in wage caps or fan ownership because they know that will lead to greater wealth distribution and only those with extreme wealth can succeed. We need to look at Germany which has a fan owned model with much greater regulation, and as a result sensible wages, sensible ticket prices. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't work, but it can't work for the benefit of all without a socialist outlook and principles, and that applies far beyond football.

This article by the Guardian says it much better than I do - yes it's ten years old but it still applies and you may not rate the Guardian, but I think it's an excellent summary of the PL.

In the Premier League the endgame of rampant capitalism is being played out | Jonathan Freedland

Jonathan Freedland: An unsustainable system where the rich win and the poor go to the wall. We see it in English football – and beyond

www.theguardian.com

 

[pommpey]

You don't rate socialism Pommpey, that's fair enough, I don't rate capitalism if unregulated which is how capitalism works, and I've seen the effects there from right wing governments that have no interest in wealth distribution. There's many problems with capitalism, the inequality and poverty it causes are well known in countries of extreme wealth because capitalism doesn't share it's wealth downwards, despite what many will say.

Let's look at football as an example. The the PL is driven by extreme wealth by a system that wants to spend as much as it can without any regulation, to continually grow as required by a capitalist model, it has resulted in frequently questionable ownership, a total lack of wealth distribution which has screwed over the EFL and the money generated goes to the players at extreme levels, and to agents. There's no interest in fair ticket prices from the PL, no interest in wage caps or fan ownership because they know that will lead to greater wealth distribution and only those with extreme wealth can succeed. We need to look at Germany which has a fan owned model with much greater regulation, and as a result sensible wages, sensible ticket prices. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't work, but it can't work for the benefit of all without a socialist outlook and principles, and that applies far beyond football.

This article by the Guardian says it much better than I do - yes it's ten years old but it still applies and you may not rate the Guardian, but I think it's an excellent summary of the PL.

In the Premier League the endgame of rampant capitalism is being played out | Jonathan Freedland

Jonathan Freedland: An unsustainable system where the rich win and the poor go to the wall. We see it in English football – and beyond

www.theguardian.com

Socialism - and it's related progeny - is a 'great idea'. It really is. But then again so is living off the land and feeding our energy systems from renewables. Human beings have evolved past that nonsense into avaricious, capricious, ambitious beasts for which the political, economic and social answer is and always will be 'capitalism'. And like riding a racehorse, it's how you conduct yourself over the gallop which counts. There is no precedent for socialism. No one can point at a successful, prosperous, egalitarian, long term socialist regime, at least one which is not enforced by state brutality, in which case it's not exactly 'for and of the people' is it? Even if it calls itself 'soclialist' on scrutiny it's far more capitalist in nature than the former simply to keep money in poorer people's pockets. This nation has developed into an entitled, self-centred mass of bellyaching twats, many whom see it their 'right' to have as much as any other, regardless of effort. Equality of outcome should not match equality of opportunity.

And aligning it to football is a bit pointless. That model is fuelled by simple greed and status, facilitated by fans' (many of them struggling) propensity to pay into the system sometimes at the expense of their own livelihoods. Take a long look into our own car park on Cherry Street to get a start point on that.

pommpey

 

[mattbianco1]