RedRazor

They may choose to invest. Full stop. I'd not make a further inference without giving pause.

 

This does not create jobs. Most investment of the kind you are referring to takes place into what is called automation. I.E. computers or robots replacing humans and actually creates no jobs and results in laying people off.

 

Thanks for your robotic assessment though. Your services will no longer be required.

Your Luddite tendencies are showing.

You suggest that businesses should not invest in technologies that enable them to compete? What do you see as the longer term outcome of such a policy?

That is the crux though isn't it?

 

The likelihood is that the latter will happen as, the pension funds are not in the slightest bit concerned about the long term benefits of any firm, just the short term benefits. And me and you, by spending and purchasing products also contribute to the economy but they increased VAT to 20% increasing our living costs and impacting our ability to purchase more.

 

Trickle down economics has never worked, and you would be very hard pressed to find any examples where this has been the case. It is the dominant economic model used in the USA and I defy anyone to argue that it is working.

I have to take your word re: comments about trickle down economics as I'm not an economist (and don't have time to investigate). You are absolutely right re: effects of VAT increase.

I think though making sweeping generalisations about how businesses will use any 'opportunities' the government has presented them with is not helpful. Some will see it as an opportunity to grow or consolidate others will see it as a chance to artificially boost dividends and bonuses. I suspect (and hope) that in the current climate that more will do the former than the latter. However, I am sure I will be disappointed by the behaviour of some.

Hopefully the government are smart enough to see how this might happen and will have closed the door (but I very much doubt it).

Sadly, I don't see any pain free choices. My preference would be the option that keeps as many peoplle in work as possible - and I don't care who comes up with it. Whether the current course of action is the right one only time will tell.

I am deeply suspicious about the benefits cap issue. Who exactly would be affected? I cannot imagine that any regular couple with two kids are getting anywhere near that amount - even with housing benefit. Which suggests that the people who will be affected have extreme needs. If these are the people that will suffer them count me as against.

Depends entirely on the business. Most major companies are publicly listed and are owned by a number of instituitions including the pension funds that most people will rely on in the future. They may also choose to invest in growth creating more employment opportunities or the longer term security of existing employees. Alternatively they may see it as an opportunity to pay bigger dividends to their shareholders or award the board bigger bonuses.

Don't think I did miss the point - I just don't see everything as blue or red.

The article states tax breaks for businesses - not tax breaks for the super duper rich. They are not the same thing.

Also, relying on quotes from extreme left-wing sources is as dangerous as relying on quotes from extreme right-wing sources.

£24 billion? I have not heard that number before. Where does it come from?

Vernon Kay - inbred mong, Graham Norton, Alan Carr, Jonanthan Woss

Brussel sprouts, 'proper' mushy peas,

Black pudding, tripe, kidney,

Alcohol free lager, (just what is the point?)

Gareth Barry, Capello (face like a muppet), David Platt (I always think of Billy Whizz), Bryan Robson (still, after all these years),

All Brummies (FAST - how can they tell if someone has had a stroke?)

Perhaps I have too much resentment bottled up inside.

A fair point, though Gerrard mentions in his autobio that his head wasn't right at that period especially the Basel game.

The brilliance of Alonso made selling Murphy look better business than it was.

 

The only real point I am trying to make is that for us to challenge properly again we need to go back to the basics, back to what made us great to start with, and that is to buy/select players who's main attributes compliment the way we play and what we stand for. Buying players based on criteria of nationality is shortsighted, if players fit the system KK wants to play then we should be going after them, and nobody else.

Fair comment but I was still glad to see the back of Murphy for the reasons given.

Agree 100% with your points about the types of player we should be buying and I would be hugely disappointed if that wasn't what was happening already. The best thing that KK has done is to create a sense of having a competitive squad. Bar Gerrard, Suarez and Reina I don't think there are any other players who can be confident that their name will be on the team sheet every week.

Also we have to consider the rule about having 8 home grown players in the 25-man squad. In Gerrard, Carra, Johnson, Henderson, Spearing, Bellamy, Carroll and Downing we now have eight who should be competing for places. The alternative was that we fill the squad up with home grown payers who weren't quite ready (Shelvey, Kelly, Flannagan et al) just to reach our quota. Including these payers due to an accident of birth rather than on the basis of their ability and work ethic may have proved to be counter-productive in the long term.

Hopefully the club will push on from where it is and add players with greater quality.

Scraping the barrel? Murphy has given 110% in every game he has played since and before he 'left' us. I'd have him over Adam anyday, even at 32 he is fitter than Adam, and atleast he has a football brain! Or any brain for that matter!

Have to disagree with this. Murphy was typical of a culture that pervaded the squad of the time. Good player but picked the games he would take seriously. More importantly his piss poor attitude was starting to rub off on other players around him including Gerrard. If you don't believe me go and find a recording of the the CL game with Basel at Anfield that we drew 1 - 1. They two of them were a disgrace that night.

I wouldn't break them up either, but can see Carragher getting a game. May even be a case for him in holding role.

If we are going to try something like that I would prefer to see Agger in front of Carra and Skrtel - but agree that we shouldn't be experimenting on Wednesday anyway. Hopefully Spearing will be fit.

I have deliberately resisted posting any comments until I have calmed down. However, it hasn't worked - that was an absolute shite performance. Only two players could walk off that pitch with their heads held high - Reina and Bellamy. This wasn't about the quality of players - it was about attitude. I wouldn't sign one of the Bolton payers on a bloody free! So how the hell could they get the result they did? The attitude is down to KK and SC. They need to get the players in the right frame of mind before they walk out on the pitch. And they failed - just as they keep doing against so called weaker teams.

As for talk of transfers etc - I asked a question on here a few days ago to see if anyone has any idea how the process works at Anfield. If KK decides he needs a new striker what happens next? I am very wary of the role of Comolli in all this. He is FSG's man - he is there to tell the board whether or not KK is giving it to them straight. Does he also have the power to veto transfer targets? Is there a policy on transfers (must be young? English/Welsh? etc etc). Until we know this criticising KK alone for transfers may prove to be misguided.

I too want KK to succeed - but I do not think he is at the moment. I also suspect that he would walk away from the job if he didn't think he could turn it around.

Anyway, it's Saturday night. Bollocks to it all.

I reckon the line up will be:-

Goal - Reina

Back four - Magic - Kelly - Skrtel - Agger - Carra -Aurelio - Flannagan - Enrique

Middle four - Maxi -Spearing - Henderson - Gerrard - Adam - Downing

Front two - Kuyt - Carrol - Bellamy

We'll batter em'

If Fosters sponsered LFC.........

(sorry - not very good at counting when I've had a few pints)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If they're putting it outside the ground then the club should pay."

What? I thought they were putting it in the centre circle. They can well feck off then.

Paying for an erection in Bolton on a Saturday evening?

Definitiely open to interpretation - just hope the FA don't get involved.

We've won it 5 times (or 10 times if you're French)

Does anyone know how transfers at Anfield are managed? For example, does Kenny say to Comolli 'go find me a striker/full back/winger etc' then Comolli goes and looks for one? Or does Comolli then have to go to FSG and justify why Kenny needs a player? Or do the scouts report direct to Kenny? Comolli must be the FSG adviser (cos they know diddly about football). So who negotiates the deals? Comolli, Kenny? FSG? Does Kenny have the final say? Or do they all have to agree? Are FSG imposing any restrictions on the types of player that can be bought e.g. must be English/Welsh, young, must have prem experience etc?

Would be helpful if we knew how the club approached deals

I may be in a minority of one but I don't think things are as black as some of the posts are suggesting. Maybe some of the signings are not quite out of the top drawer - yet. Most of them will get better while some may whither and die due to a combination of poor form and extremely high expectation. What the signings have done collectively coupled with the elevation of some of the younger payers is to give us a sense of having a squad that can compete throughout the season. And we have competed. We have matched and exceeded City, the Scum, Chelsea and Arsenal already. A bad day out at Spurs aside there is no-one in this league who has outclassed us over 90 minutes. A tiny bit more luck with penalties and shots that hit the woodwork and we would be much better off points wise. Absolutely agree that we need to add more cutting edge but I for one will keep supporting the eleven players that kenny chooses to give a shirt.

This triggered something in my memory (may be mis-firing synapses due to fraility in my twilight years) but did LS make a statement very early on in the process to the effect that he only called Evra something that his teamates called him? If so, does this suggest that United payers were referring to Evra with the same word during the match? The other thing that I find a little odd is that none of his teamates who made a statement appear to have offered any significant support or been particularly outraged.

...of our size and stature, have taken on a manager who had not managed anywhere in 10 years and not successfully in 20 years (apart from Newcastle who are a 'Messiah' club; something we are fast becoming, sadly)?

 

No.

 

We have bought over-rated players for inflated prices and will end up six or seventh in all likelihood. Can we all, hand on heart, say appointing 'the King' (?) was a wise move, rather than one based on sheer emotion?

Cunning and experience will overcome youthful enthusiasm every time