Can confirm is funny
2 years ago
754
It's definitely not staged.
I've never played golf beyond pitch-and-putt in my youth, but could well imagine the irritation of the party in front taking ages to play holes because they're pissed.
This is amusing in a karma sort of way because the gobby fella is warned several times to walk away before he makes the mistake of charging a much bigger bloke. Throwing him in the lake is a masterstroke.
A open-and-shut case of FAFO, m'lud.
This is going to be exceedingly bad for football, as I have been warning for some time. Support for it is straight out of the Brexit/MAGA playback - the "anything is better than what we have now" model of brain dead political support, rather than the exercise of basic critical faculties.
Watch and see.
This might well be right, but in case it wasn't clear, listing Derby with Macclesfield etc. was the bit I enjoyed.
Just to be clear. You think footballs current self governance is going well?
If clarity is what you're looking for, perhaps start by reading what's there. I've explained this in detail before and I'm happy to do so again, but only as long as you promise to actually engage in a good faith conversation about it and not just look for any gaps you can fill with the most argumentative position you can think of as an exercise in satisfying your boredom.
Sure. Let me summarise what I'm seeing.
You are convinced that a thing will be bad when it hasn't happened yet. This is either because you think what is there is good (I don't), something else (as far as I know unspecified) would be better, or you think it's none of our business.
Now I don't think any of those things, but i want to get a picture of what your actual position is, before I dig into what your problem is with having the ultimate democratic body set up an independent regulator to protect the peoples interest in the (formerly) peoples game.
The thinking that led you to the frothing, if you like.
My assumption is always everything on line like that is staged for the clicks.
Doesn't mean things aren't funny, just more like a well done comedy sketch.
OK. I not only don't think that what is there is good, I think it's orders of magnitude worse than what we have today (which is also not good). Currently we have decisions made about the administration of the sport by a League and a cabal of global billionaires, and they are motivated entirely by money and power. This is not a healthy thing for the sport. The Crouch Report is in the process of giving arbitration powers to an "independent" regulator, which in theory isn't a terrible idea but in practice is independent like asking me to referee a Forest v Derby match would be independent. That regulator is appointed by, funded by, and answerable solely to, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The Crouch Report and its recommendations have absolutely nothing to do with sport or fans or protecting the Burys and Morecambes; this was entirely an exercise in the Conservative Government saying "hey, look at all these foreign billionaires buying power and influence and us not getting our rake, we need to get involved in this" and then the Labour Government saying "hoo boy, we'll have a bit of that". The absolute best outcome this will produce for the sport is the odd highly promoted "look, we stepped in to save the next Bury" as a useful distraction while they sell out the next Newcastle in exchange for political influence. This not only doesn't prevent the current corruption, it adds whole new levels.
I do think that there is a better way of doing things, it's not ideal but it would be a significant improvement on both status quo and the Crouch Report recommendations. It would only be better for fans and the sport though and not for the club owners, the Premier League, or the government, and as a result has no chance of ever happening. It's why it wasn't even mooted by Crouch. It's that you have an actual independent regulator, not a political appointee, whose office you force the sport to fund. You implement an open democratic process for their appointment that involves multiple stakeholders - the FA, the EPL, the EFL, a specific representative of the women's game, and some form of fan representation, and you give the Government zero say in their appointment. You make the position term limited, and you make them publicly accountable for any and all decisions.
Here is your flaw...I think. What actual "independence" do you think that you can invent, that is more accountable to the interests of the people, and less able to be bought by all those billionaires, than the democratically elected government?
I don't think full independence is likely, or that any office or system is incorruptible. I do though think that slightly more effort than repeatedly saying "independent" when describing an entirely governmental function is warranted; there is zero doubt in my mind that the current office is simply an exercise in "make this investment or do this thing for us and we'll get you a Premier League club" or "let me buy this football club or I'll do this thing that will be bad for the UK". At least the Premier League is solely motivated by money, they're only fucking up football and not entire social systems. The new model is going to be worse than status quo. not better.
That's opinion. Your view is that the most democratically valid option will be even worse than all the other things. Mine is that we the people have a responsibility to make our democratically elected government work for us, the people...and to hold them accountable if they don't. I really don't see a better option. Of course that requires us, the people, not to be silly buggers and let ourselves get gupped by whatever vehicle Vlad and the money boys invent to keep their interests ahead of ours. Which in the current context means that we have a responsibility to keep the tories and reform the fuck away from our stuff. If we don't, it's on us.
I find it completely inconceivable that you can invent a truly independent vehicle, with the power and the will to promote the interests of the people, without it being at some level holding the legislative power of government, and the accountability to the electorate.
If what you are saying is that we will fuck it up, because far too many of us believe the crap that's fed us, and that it will be subject to the same process of mismanagement and defunding, to prove that it doesn't work (if intentionally broken - like the public services, utilities, etc), then I agree that's a likely outcome. Because. People. I just can't see a better idea that doesn't already start some way down the path of being subject to interference. Ultimately it comes down to one key point of belief for me: Do you think it's okay, or do you think we should try to do something about it.
Your idea of independent is also independent of us. As far as I can see. I can quite understand why that's been promoted as a counter to "government interference" (ie democratic control by the people). Its a lot easier to buy.
Your sudden faith in the upstanding moral nature of elected officials is a little surprising, if I'm honest. Let me remind you that the architect of this plan was Tracey Crouch, a Conservative MP, representing one of the most inept, corrupt and self serving governments in the country's history, and that the current government is enacting it to the letter.
They haven't proposed an independent regulator for cricket or golf or rugby or netball or kabbadi, so let's not pretend it's all about the integrity of sport. If it was about protecting community assets there are about a billion other more deserving and appropriate ways for them to expend these resources. The only value this exercise has to any government is the creation of additional leverage when dealing with powerful foreign individuals and governments, therefore it's the only logical reason they have for doing it.
Again. I feel like you are missing the point. I don't have any faith in the sort of politicians other people keep electing. I also think football is going badly (to my taste), and you are not suggesting anything that could do better.
I believe that national assets should be controlled or regulated by governance accountable to the people. I can't make you vote the right way, and make them do their job. I accept the right of our society to elect the wrong sort, and not hold them responsible. That doesn't undermine the principle (ultimately letting them fuck up our stuff is our choice), and unless I'm overlooking some obscure point you are doing nothing to square the circle of your proposition that contains no guarantees beyond a belief in words and some sort of immunity to corruption invested in an unknown thing for no particular reason.
Note. The thing that we currently have has fucked us, and we've paid royally for the privilege.
I'm intrigued as to what actions they are actually going to take. Remove Chansiri from Wednesday or Youngge from Reading? Assume that's not in their power. Are they going to stop future buyers of clubs that they don't like? Good luck with that.
But, at least if Marinakis decided we were going to play in blue, they could stop that. What colour are Cardiff playing in nowadays?
I miss Channel 4 kabbadi.
NOW I AM CALLING IT! AFTER TODAY'S NEWS I FEEL LIKE US FANS HAVE BEEN BUMMED HARD UP THE ARSE!
TIME FOR GAY WEEK!!!!!
Ingo over to you.
Chicago: Feeling sore.
I have a new ambition, namely to one day be accused of being "the progenitor of [a] whole tawdry episode of poseurs, 30 pieces of silver,...... manque and avarice".
And they say that Americans have no grasp of the beauty of language.
