titch juicy

A colleague wrote this piece. "Vote for Brexit would blow British economy inside out. 21 March 2016 With three months still to go before the UK votes on whether to leave the European Union, emotions are running high. That should not prevent us making a calm assessment of the possible reaction of financial markets to Brexit and what that reaction might do to the British economy. Broken Britain: a vote to leave would have a disastrous impact on the economy The impacts on sterling, the UK current account and UK assets seem likely to cause considerable damage. Let?s start with sterling and the pressure that the currency will be under to devalue. Brexit obliges the market to focus on the UK current account. The problem is trade in goods, with the UK importing more than it exports. In services, things are better: the UK runs a current account surplus, with financial services being the major contributor. The net result, however, is not a happy picture: not since the Second World War has the UK current account balance been so deeply in deficit, flirting with -5% of GDP. This has never happened in a time of peace. Most of this deficit is with the EU, from which the UK imports plenty of goods such as cars, food and beverages. If, after leaving the EU, the UK negotiated a trade agreement that did not cover services, it would leave a large hole in the UK current account: while still importing a large volume of goods, the country would stop benefiting from exporting its services to the rest of the EU. Financial services represent a matter of profound importance to the UK and the consequences of leaving such an important market would be dire. There is no precedent for a state to have access to the EU financial markets without paying a contribution to the EU and complying with most of its regulations. The current account deficit has been so far financed by the ?kindness of strangers?, as international investors have poured capital into the UK via portfolio flows or foreign direct investment. It is likely that, in the uncertainty preceding the referendum, which would be greatly increased by a vote in favour of Brexit, flows will slow down and maybe even dry up completely. Sterling will be the mechanism through which the UK will be able to continue to attract capital flows. Studies suggest that to fund the current account deficit, sterling would need to devalue by about 25% to 30% on a trade-weighted basis; also, an analysis of historical times of stress shows how sterling tends to devalue by at least 15%-20%. In other words, we would have to manage a scenario in which the currency undergoes a significant devaluation to attract capital flows, slow imports and boost exports. In the event of Brexit, we envisage that the resulting political uncertainty would weaken the euro. But for the UK, because most of its trade deficit is with the EU, it would be desirable for sterling to depreciate against the euro. A problem caused by this projected weakness of sterling is inflation, which would rise to between 4% and 5%. This would represent a major challenge for the Bank of England, which will have a dilemma: defend sterling by increasing official rates, thus slowing the economy and hitting the housing market, or look through this inflationary phase? Let us now look at the asset markets. As the current account deficit would have to be plugged by capital inflows, the UK would need to offer an attractive set of risk premiums to global investors. Many short and intermediate UK gilts are held by foreign investors, while longer-dated paper is mainly held by UK institutions. In case of a post-Brexit flight to quality, expect short and intermediate gilts to be affected first, with yields rising. To judge by past periods of stress, the extra risk premium required would be about 150 basis points, a significant correction. Long-dated securities would be hit by inflation picking up, as a consequence of weakness in sterling. In equities, Brexit would require many investors to modify their approach. When sterling is strong and the economy works, small and mid-sized caps tend to perform well, given that import costs remain low and domestic demand is strong. If sterling were to weaken, this would cause the opposite, with the need to shift away from the domestically-driven companies towards UK-listed multinationals ? in other words, favouring FTSE 100 companies with a material portion of the revenues generated abroad. There is still uncertainty on whether the referendum would be considered politically binding by the Government and whether a second vote would be considered. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK would be given two years to structure an orderly exit, during which there would be an attempt to negotiate new terms for the trading relationship with the EU. If the UK did vote to leave, the economic challenges would be difficult, especially in negotiating a different trade agreement with the EU. In my view, the EU would not want to set a precedent and would not want to signal to other member countries that there is an easy way to ?leave and renegotiate?. Negotiations could become difficult and the outcome uncertain. A new agreement might well be reached on trade in goods, but access to the EU market for services without a full EU compliance package looks almost impossible. It is clear that the EU does not want the UK to leave. The political reverberations will be deep. The EU would be anxious that post-Brexit concessions to the UK would encourage nationalistic movements in other member countries to try to follow the UK example. This could result in a dangerous political chain reaction that could easily lead to national referendums in other member countries. The UK?s annual contribution to the EU is about ?10 billion. Eurosceptics would like voters to believe that the UK would save that much a year by leaving ? a great bargain. Apart from the heavy costs of the market reactions already discussed, the UK government would need to help regions that would stop receiving European structural funds and sectors that could be disproportionally hit by tariffs on trade. The UK?s membership of the EU demands careful deliberation, because among all the uncertainties about this issue, of one thing we can be sure ? whatever the electorate decides in June, the economic effects will be felt for a long time."

Will you let me answer your question, with a question?

I think point being that Pochettino's net spend whilst in charge has been ?6m profit. Leicester have spent more during the same period. Alright, that doesn't tell the whole story- Spurs first XI at the weekend cost c.?85m compared to Leicester's c.?22m and West Ham's c.?63m. But it still pales when put alongside City's c.?250m, United's c.?184m, Liverpool's c.?131m, Chelsea's c.?129m and Arsenal's c.?123m. (yes, i've just sat and worked all that out!). And goodness knows how much injured players and substitutes cost for all those teams.

Yep, either side winning it will be good. If this season's shown us anything it's that hungry, young, sensibly paid players, pulling in the same direction under a manager that knows how to bring the best out of them (Leicester, Tottenham, West Ham), seems to be preferable to overpaid mercenaries that don't care greatly and know they'll get their ?200k a week regardless of how they play (City, United, Chelsea).

No, it's a fake. A deliberate set up, like so many of these internet 'funnies' are.

Spursday Nights will never be the same again.

Haha!

I think the main reason the Europa League is so unpopular is getting very little financial reward for such a punishing schedule. It's slightly more popular now that a CL place goes to the winner. But I don't see the difference between playing weds/sat and thurs/sun. And for leagues games following Europa league games this season, Spurs record is Won 5, Drawn 3, Lost 1.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think it has a lot to do with the way Klopp > > wants them playing; high tempo gegenpress and > them > > not being fit enough to do so for 90 mins. > > > > With a full pre-season and his own playing > staff, > > I imagine next season Liverpool will be better > for > > 90 mins. > > May have just as much to do as them having played > on Thursday night as LVG pointed out. Spurs played on Thursday night and were given much more of a run around than Liverpool, yet we had no trouble over 90 mins. And yes, a couple of key players were rested but the majority played (Lloris, Alderweireld, Wimmer, Rose for 80 mins, Alli, Dier, Lamela).

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but for the US open, the women's game draws > more viewers when Serena is playing than the men's > game. > > Its all about if the country hosting it has one of > their superstars in the championship or if its a > classic head to head. > > Its much more about the individual players (IMO) > than women's game vs. men's game. > > > > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The men's Wimbledon final has twice as many > > viewers; three times some years. > > > > But, the women's final being on Saturday > > lunchtime, when people are more likely to be > busy > > might have a small part to play in that. good point

I think it has a lot to do with the way Klopp wants them playing; high tempo gegenpress and them not being fit enough to do so for 90 mins. With a full pre-season and his own playing staff, I imagine next season Liverpool will be better for 90 mins.

The men's Wimbledon final has twice as many viewers; three times some years. But, the women's final being on Saturday lunchtime, when people are more likely to be busy might have a small part to play in that.

I've always found the service warm and just attentive enough in Le Chandelier. I've been in perhaps 20 times over the last few years and never once had a problem with the service. Other than the nasty manageress (or whatever her role is), the most alarming thing I saw in there was a young-ish couple on the table next to ours cover their Eggs Royale with ketchup. And I do mean smothered it in the stuff. Smoked Salmon, rich hollandaise and ketchup. I ask you.

Fair or not fair? Should prize money be determined by demand or by toughness of task? Or neither? For the record, i believe that just because Women play less sets in tournaments, it doesn't mean that work any less hard. But, in all areas of entertainment and sport, prize money and wages seems to be determined by demand.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only complaint I've got is the way the owner > talked to her staff. > > If you check company registrations you will find > that the lady you assume is the owner (and who > acts very much like an owner) is not in fact one > of the registered company directors of the company > owing the business. Interesting and even worse in that case.

Used the place fairly regularly and really liked it. Sounds like I had the opposite experience to some on here. Excellent tea- not sure what the lady above is taking about with a small measure in a cup, they always served tea in pots. Best Eggs Royale around here and I've tried them all. Also good cake. Everyone I've taken there has liked it and he place. The only complaint I've got is the way the owner talked to her staff. She'd often be in on a Sunday morning and it shocked me how she used to bully the staff, especially within earshot of customers.

If anyone other than Borussia Dortmund wins the Europa League i'll eat my hat and the hats of all my friends.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, West Ham have already sold 46,000 season > Tickets at the OS...."you'll never fill it" > "careful what you wish for" etc Smart move by the porn barons pricing the season tickets at ?289 (incredibly low price- comes in at ?15 a home game, not counting any cup allowance. That's a League 2 pricing point). But, guaranteed cashflow and increased fanbase. A lot of armchair Essex fans who couldn't be arsed with the journey to Upton Park have now snapped them up, with the easy journey into Stratford. West Ham could be up there for some time too.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, last time being back in the 1927. We've won > far more trophies and were the first to do the > double last century. First British club to win a > major European trophy... blah blah blah. Our > history is far superior. Jeez, call yourself a > Spurs fan. I don't call myself a blinkered Spurs fan. More a realistic one.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, we're in the same category. We're nothing > like > > a 'great club' as it stands. If we embark on a > > period of success now, then perhaps we could be > > considered such, as we have at times in the > past. > > I would say we're closer than Newcastle though. > > You're forgetting our glorious history. Of course > we're a great club. Far more successful than > Newcastle. > > COYS! They've won twice as many leagues as us

More or less exactly what I've been saying since I've been a cycle commuter. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sir-bradley-wiggins-warns-london-s-cyclists-stop-riding-dangerously-or-face-crackdown-a3202296.html

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You could argue that they were a great club in > the > > middle of the last century when they won a few > FA > > Cups or the first decade of the last century > when > > they won the league a few times, but now > they're > > just an average club with some very distant > > history and high attendances. > > I would argue they are still a great club, but > I'll ask again, what do you think makes a great > club? Why do you think they're still a great club? Because they get a lot of fans through the door? That to me means they have great fans, but that's not enough to make them a great club.

No, we're in the same category. We're nothing like a 'great club' as it stands. If we embark on a period of success now, then perhaps we could be considered such, as we have at times in the past. I would say we're closer than Newcastle though. If I had to define what makes a great club, I guess it would be; global and domestic fanbase (yes, it's a measure, but only a small one), recent (last couple of decades) success at home and abroad, youth/academy system and well run financially etc. The board are just as much part of the club as the players, management and fans. For me, the only current great Premier League clubs are Man United, Arsenal and at a stretch Liverpool. They built their relatively recent successes on something other than massive debt. I know United now have large debt, but during their period of real success it was built on youth.

You could argue that they were a great club in the middle of the last century when they won a few FA Cups or the first decade of the last century when they won the league a few times, but now they're just an average club with some very distant history and high attendances.

But why does number of fans through the gate = great club? It is a small measure, but certainly doesn't define the greatness of a club.