Jump to content

Cornish Steve

Members
  • Posts

    11,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Everything posted by Cornish Steve

  1. You're not below average; you're below TT Average, which is different. TT Average is the average of all predictions made, which (because of the "wisdom of crowds") is usually a very good predictor of scores. It's not uncommon for TT Average to achieve the highest score in this game. By the way, if you want to win some cash, enter those competitions at local fairs where you must guess the number of marbles in a jar - but wait until the end of the day. Look at all the previous guesses and calculate the average. Chances are you might well win. The wisdom of crowds was used once to predict where a submarine sank in the Atlantic. A number of experts were asked to predict the exact location, and then they took the average of all predictions. The submarine was found 100 yards from that spot.
  2. Newcastle looking to buy him in January. Go take a running jump. The rich don’t always get their way.
  3. What extreme arrogance from Warnock. Someone is an idiot simply because they are from Latvia? https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67484554
  4. Once again, this is a complete farce. Money talks. The rich and powerful get preferred treatment.
  5. As always, hope for the best but plan for the worst.
  6. I was thinking about this, and it's a key point. The Premier League made this up, completely, with no precedent, no explanation, and no obvious thought. That's no way to run a business. What's needed is a clear statement in advance about: 1) What constitutes a violation, with exceptions clearly defined. 2) What are the penalties for a violation. 3) How do penalties and 3-year averages interact so a club can't be charged twice for the same violation. For example: - The 3-year annual allowed loss is $100m - What is excluded (e.g., stadium expenses), specific allowances for surprises (e.g., COVID) - A loss exceeding $100m but less than $150m, fine of 10% of loss over $100m and deduction of 3 points - A loss exceeding $150m but less than $200m, fine of 20% for the loss over $150m and deduction of 6 points - A loss exceeding $200m, fine of 30% for the loss over $200m and a deduction of 9 points - Fines etc. are increased for repeat offenders, so the big clubs can't ride rough-shod over financial limits and treat fines as an occupational hazard: doubled for second violation in 10 years, tripled for a third violation in 10 years. - Any violation precludes involvement in Europe for the next season. - If a club violates the rules three times in a 10-year period, they are automatically relegated. - This would apply to all leagues, except that the limits and the fines would vary for each league. - The fines are not kept by the PL but distributed to other teams in the league, including those relegated. The amount given to other teams would be in inverse proportion to their final league position (with the three relegated teams receiving the most). - Clubs cannot file lawsuits against others. Personally, I'd rather the fine be a percentage of the club's annual income so the impact is the same for each club. This should be posted somewhere for all to see so there are no excuses, no dragging out proceedings by big clubs, and no making things up as we go along. Everyone is treated fairly. Everyone knows in advance the consequences of their actions. No surprises.
  7. Given the likely ferocity of the fans and added determination of manager and players this weekend, I'm changing my prediction. Everton 5-0 United DC-L The idiots running the PL, minus 1,000.
  8. We paid for him about the amount we're assessed to have exceeded the limit averaged over 3 years. Given the accusation made against him, his value dropped to zero - we lost the lot, plus his salary. In our submission to the league, we included this as an example of extenuating circumstances.
  9. Looking at it from a pure numbers perspective, one incident alone could be said to have caused this situation: recruiting Gylfi Sigurdsson. Of course, we can say the same about choosing to work with Usmanov, but I think the Gylfi situation puts the whole thing into perspective. Should a club face such a punishment over the mistaken hire of one player?
  10. It's quite extraordinary. Even ardent Liverpool supporters are lining up behind Everton and against the Premier League. Whoever would have believed that? I wouldn't mind betting that Everton will be mentioned in parliament this week, such is the intensity of public feeling around this decision.
  11. I'd better give the correct answers. Left to right, the shoes belong to... Top row: Martinez, Koeman, Allardyce Middle row: Dyche, Lampard, Silva Bottom row: Moyes, Benitez, Ancelotti Allardyce's shoes, worn during an interview, were outrageous. Ancelotti's appear to be made of Italian leather. Martinez, Moyes, and Benitez all wore brown.
  12. Can you tell whose shoes are whose for each of our last nine permanent managers? (Each pair was worn during their time as Everton manager.)
  13. Maybe they need reminding that three teams are relegated. Even if we'd scored no points at all, two of them would still have been relegated. This is all a complete farce.
  14. What happened? Was the news about the points deduction too much for TT to bear?
  15. This is one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the Premier League, and it's going to create a huge backlash. Looking at the situation objectively, there are some positives here... - Certainty is better than uncertainty. While the decision is extreme, at least we now know what it is and can deal with it. - It's going to put a huge spotlight on the big teams. I don't see them continuing to get away with their financial shennanigans. - This is the right time and the right season to face a points deduction since, on the pitch, we're on the up and up. - If we appeal or even sue for lost TV revenues, it will bring a level of accountability the league has been sorely missing. Oh how I wish we'd secured three points against Brighton and not just one. We wouldn't even be in the bottom three.
  16. This could mean we finish about four places lower than we otherwise would, meaning a reduction in TV money of several million pounds. It IS a fine - and a complete farce.
  17. Palfy, get outta here! This is the great class debate.
  18. I agree with your reasoning and your thinking; I'm simply pointing out my experiences in Britain and with British companies. It's quite different in the US. Years ago, I was selling to a technology company in Massachusetts and meeting with their executive team. When the meeting started, we're all wearing suits, including four VPs from that company. After about 20 minutes, the door opened, and this scruffy guy in jeans wheeled in a tray with coffee and snacks. Surprisingly, he hung around for a few minutes until we stopped to take a break. I always make a point of saying "hello" to people and thanking them when appropriate, so I did the same to this guy. He shook my hand and said "I'm Andy XXX, the CEO. I own this company." As you rightly say, appearances can be deceiving. In contrast, I met with a VP of technology at BT. Since I'd heard his name, I went over and said "Hello. You must be Dave." His response was "No. I'm Doctor David XXX." With great pleasure, I responded: "Nice to meet you. I'm Doctor Steve" (since I, too, have a PhD). Sometimes it's possible to put an immediate end to snobbery.
  19. It's very very different in Britain. In London, I initially worked with a team of people who were all Oxbridge graduates. While they were very nice and welcoming guys, I was always aware that I came from the wrong place, spoke with the wrong accent, and went to the wrong university. A few years later, I led a multinational project involving a team in Britain and had to speak with the principal consultant about using the same editing tools as everyone else. His response was "Lord so-and-so is my uncle. I do things my way, OK?". The fact that I was leading the project was immaterial; he pulled rank based on class. I've never experienced anything like that in the US.
  20. How does this play out in practice? After completing my PhD, I started my first real job in central London. The closest I could afford to live was in the suburbs of Rugby. It was during the time when Mrs Thatcher pursued a policy whereby families could purchase their council house at a discount, leading to mixed estates where some houses remained council houses and others were now private homes. My wife and I purchased a terraced house in such an estate. Every day, I would cycle to the railway station, take the 92-mile train journey to Euston, and then walk 30 minutes to my office just off Oxford Street, leaving home in the morning when it was dark and arriving home at night when it was dark. Some on the railway station knew that I lived on a council estate, so I was shunned and looked down on. My neighbors saw me leaving for work in a suit, so I was shunned by them as well for not being working class. Frankly, life was miserable and hard. When you took into account the cost of daily train fare, I was earning significantly less than a next-door neighbor who lived solely on unemployment benefit. Indeed, some suggested I quit my job and go on the dole since it would mean a significant "pay raise". That neighbor had a car; we couldn't afford one. That neighbor took holidays; we never could. How does class work in situations like this? Was my education or my income the best judge of class? Does wearing a suit preclude one from being accepted by neighbors in a working class neighborhood? Does living on a council estate stop someone from being accepted as a professional working in the big city? Class is a complicated thing, but the implications on a person's life in Britain, at that time, were significant. I found the pressure on my family so unreasonable that class structure was one of two principal reasons why I chose to leave the country.
×
×
  • Create New...