Liverpool's £77 ticket not to be introduced.
Victory for people power!
(Prices in Germany are what? Just £20-£30)
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,799
Quote: A Horseradish @ 10th February 2016, 7:14 PM GMTLiverpool's £77 ticket not to be introduced.
Victory for people power!
(Prices in Germany are what? Just £20-£30)
Is that the cheapest ticket price, the average, or the most expensive ticket?
Quote: DaButt @ 10th February 2016, 7:19 PM GMTIs that the cheapest ticket price, the average, or the most expensive ticket?
At some English clubs it's much more than that. And they've got £8 billion coming in next year from worldwide TV rights - greedy bastards.
They should really make it a maximum of about £30 although the touts would have a field day.
Quote: DaButt @ 10th February 2016, 7:19 PM GMTIs that the cheapest ticket price, the average, or the most expensive ticket?
It's the top end which will remain at the current £59. The decision has implications far wider than Liverpool. The difference between Britain and Germany etc is that on the Continent (broadly) there is more of a supporter stake in ownership. Consequently the entire football package in Europe including pricing is fairer and more football orientated.The reason why this has all come to a head this year is that there is a new TV deal from 2016/2017 which will see all Premier League clubs prosper from additional television money. So much so that the point has been made all the clubs could make every ticket available next season for free and still be financially better off.
The PM was put on the spot about it in Parliament today. His statement that the fans have an argument appears to have triggered the decision by Liverpool's American owners to reverse given that it adds to what already was a PR nightmare. The walkout was seen all over the world including in the Far East. I have to say though Cameron's tone didn't wholly convince me. His natural outlook would be anything goes but he recognises that votes are in it.
Quote: Chappers @ 10th February 2016, 7:28 PM GMTAt some English clubs it's much more than that. And they've got £8 billion coming in next year from worldwide TV rights - greedy bastards.
They should really make it a maximum of about £30 although the touts would have a field day.
It seems cheap compared to an NFL ticket that is typically in the hundreds of dollars, but there are only 8 home games during the regular season, so supply & demand drives the prices up.
I'm not a huge sports fan, so I'd rather see ticket prices increase so that the fans are the ones who pay for everything. TV fees are paid for by advertisers and it eventually comes out of every consumer's pocket.
Quote: DaButt @ 10th February 2016, 7:59 PM GMTIt seems cheap compared to an NFL ticket that is typically in the hundreds of dollars, but there are only 8 home games during the regular season, so supply & demand drives the prices up.
I'm not a huge sports fan, so I'd rather see ticket prices increase so that the fans are the ones who pay for everything. TV fees are paid for by advertisers and it eventually comes out of every consumer's pocket.
Good point.
Quote: DaButt @ 10th February 2016, 7:59 PM GMTIt seems cheap compared to an NFL ticket that is typically in the hundreds of dollars, but there are only 8 home games during the regular season, so supply & demand drives the prices up.
How many teams are there then?
I have no time for American Football. There looks to be no skill whatever. Just throw it or kick it as far as you can and then run into the oppostion as hard as you can.
Quote: Chappers @ 10th February 2016, 11:30 PM GMTHow many teams are there then?
There are 32 teams in the NFL and there's no relegation. They play in stadiums holding between 61,000 and 93,000 spectators.
College football is an even bigger draw, with more than a hundred teams -- many of which have stadiums larger than the NFL. The largest seats 107,000. Only one of the 20 largest football stadiums belongs to an NFL team, the rest are on university campuses.
Quote: Chappers @ 10th February 2016, 11:30 PM GMTI have no time for American Football. There looks to be no skill whatever. Just throw it or kick it as far as you can and then run into the oppostion as hard as you can.
I could say that EPL football seems to require no skill at all: just kick a ball into a huge net, but I realize that there's obviously more to it than that. When athletes are paid tens of millions of dollars per year, common sense tells me that they are obviously quite skilled in their sport, even if I don't enjoy it.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ 19th February 2016, 1:05 AM GMTSo, come on DaButt..
In my semi-isolated UK media-fed cloud, I have been being bombarded by US political advertising (some may say 'propaganda'), regarding the relative merits of so-called 'Democratic' presidential candidates versus those of the 'Republican' persuasion.
I'm sure that you already know that this is extremely confusing for someone of a UK-centric political bias: in a UK sense, 'Republican' means someone who supports a 'Republic', i.e. an elected assembly with a 'President' at its head (no Monarchy), which, in the UK, means the same thing as 'Democratic'..
..but I don't have to tell you that these two terms (Republican and Democrat) mean opposite ends of the political spectrum in the US.
So..
I'm trying to get an angle here: the epitome of one against the other -
The names of the parties mean nothing, as they were derived nearly 200 years ago. I know that you have a Labour party, but are their leaders traditionally labourers (those extra u's are agonizing to type) or are they just politicians?
Things change so often here that you need a scorecard. Less than 60 years ago the Democrats were the party of the racist South who kept segregation alive, but now most people of colour are Democrats and they accuse Republicans of being racist.
Our system is completely out of whack. The presidential campaign lasts almost 18 months and you need a billion dollars to mount a respectable campaign. It's sad that you need to be a billionaire, a celebrity or a member of a political family dynasty to have a chance to be elected president. Hillary Clinton won Iowa by an almost immeasurably small margin (some delegates were decided by coin tosses) and was soundly defeated in New Hampshire, but she leads second place Bernie Sanders in delegates by a margin of 481-55.
My thoughts on the major candidates:
Hillary Clinton: Her ship has sailed. She missed the boat in 2008 and though she's not very well liked amongst Republicans, I haven't met one who didn't wish that she had beaten Obama in the election. She's old, shrill, out of touch and she exudes an aura of entitlement. One can almost picture the angry conversation she had with her husband after his extramarital affairs hit the news: "I'll stand by your side like a good wife, you bastard, but you will support me as I build my own political career." Her stance against big money and Wall Street is laughable, since she and her husband have earned $150 million in speaking fees and much of it has come from banks and Wall Street. My personal opinion is that she'll drop out of the race due to "health" or "personal" issues.
Bernie Sanders: A crackpot. His supporters are overwhelmingly young people who are enticed by his promises of free stuff that will be paid for by rich people. Ah, to be young and naive. At least he's walking the walk about big money in politics, but I'm concerned that someone well into his 70s who is supposedly intelligent has only managed to amass a net worth of $300,000. Unlike Hillary, he seems almost wholly unelectable.
Donald Trump: A self-promoting blowhard. He must be astounded that he's made it this far in the campaign, but it's only because people are so fed up with the system. He does other candidates a favor by being the first one to speak out against illegal immigration and Islamist terrorists, but anti-political correctness will only get a person so far in politics. He'll probably implode spectacularly, but maybe he's just in the race to destroy the Republican party. It's not as if he wasn't a Democrat most of his life...
Ted Cruz: I like the guy. He's a bit mean and confrontational, but he's from Texas and I like his chutzpah. He's polarizing, but American politics are all about polarization these days. I voted for him when he was a long shot running for the senate because I was fed up with Washington, so I guess I could do it again.
Marco Rubio: Like Cruz, he's Hispanic and that resonates with an America that is nearly majority Hispanic (My city of 2,000,000+ is 65% Hispanic) and that can only help him. He's very smart and I think he has a good shot at being president someday, but I don't know if this will be his year, since he's very young. He was a good friend of my late father-in-law, so maybe if he's elected I can find myself visiting the White House someday.
Jeb Bush: All in all, he'd probably make the best president, but he's tainted by his last name. There was a Bush or a Clinton as president or vice president from 1981 through 2009 (28 years!) so I think we've had enough dynasties to last us for quite some time. He was also a friend of my father-in-law, but I doubt I'll have a chance to meet him at the White House within the next 4 years.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't want a president who never spent time in uniform. We could probably just draft 4-star generals into the presidency and have a much better outcome.
Early voting for the presidential primary in Texas began Tuesday. I think I'll head to the library tomorrow morning to vote before the crowds gather on election day. Easy peasy.
It's the poor people trying to use a library for reading that I feel sorry for. Okay, the government employ librarians but that doesn't mean they own it! It'd be like turning the BBC into a polling station!
Well, Da Butt, it sounds as if you're as pissed off with politics as are many of us here - there just isn't one swine worth voting for.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 19th February 2016, 7:53 AM GMTIt's the poor people trying to use a library for reading that I feel sorry for. Okay, the government employ librarians but that doesn't mean they own it! It'd be like turning the BBC into a polling station!
Polling stations are set up in libraries, schools, community centers, government buildings, etc. and the only impact they might have would be to the availability of parking spaces on the actual election day.
The library where I vote is about 4 miles from my home and the polls are set up in a hallway in another part of the building. I doubt I'll even see a book or a library patron while I'm there.
Quote: keewik @ 19th February 2016, 12:08 PM GMTWell, Da Butt, it sounds as if you're as pissed off with politics as are many of us here - there just isn't one swine worth voting for.
There are plenty of good candidates, but without lots of money, media support and/or name recognition they don't stand much of a chance.
Jim Webb is a Marine veteran of the Vietnam War and his campaign as a Democrat was crushed by the Hillary juggernaut. I'd vote for him in a second.
Quote: DaButt @ 19th February 2016, 2:01 PM GMTPolling stations are set up in libraries, schools, community centers, government buildings, etc. and the only impact they might have would be to the availability of parking spaces on the actual election day.
The library where I vote is about 4 miles from my home and the polls are set up in a hallway in another part of the building. I doubt I'll even see a book or a library patron while I'm there.
We usually use church and village halls. No doubt you are going to drive to the library? Typical Yank.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 19th February 2016, 2:36 PM GMTWe usually use church and village halls. No doubt you are going to drive to the library? Typical Yank.
There are also churches in use as polling places. I assume they'll use any building that's offered up.
Yes, I'm going to drive. There's not a bus within 5 miles of either location, my bike has a flat tire and I'm not in the mood for 9 miles of walking.
He's going to drive there in his tank.