How can you say that Spurs would be no better off or worse off? Spurs would get the money so that is more money for them. I am sure you would agree with me the more money Spurs gets the more can be used on transfers etc.
Maybe I have not been clear enough in my explanation, but the reason I can say that spurs would be no better or no worse off than they are currently, would work out as follows:
( I have used lower numbers just to show what I mean.)
Current system.
Spurs has 5 home games + 5 Away games.
Home game = 100 visiting fans paying £50 per ticket = Spurs get from away fans £5000 x 5 games = £25,000
Away game = 100 travelling spurs fans paying £150 per ticket = Spurs get nothing from these sales.
Cost to spurs fan = £750
New system:
Home game = 100 visiting fans paying £150 per ticket = Spurs get nothing from these sales.
Away games = 100 travelling spurs fans paying £50 per ticket = Spurs get from their own travelling fans £5000 x 5 games = £25,000 (Exactly the same amount)
Cost to Spurs fan = £350
We as a club still make the same money but the fans get the benefit. The fans for the club who charge £150 for a ticket, would have to put pressure on their own club, or like you have said, choose not to go.
An in what way is an economic and monetary system due for a change? Socialist have been saying this for ages. What happened they changed their position.
Not sure if you have noticed but the system is on the brink of collapse across the world. Money equals debt, the system is designed in a way that ensures that bankruptcy and failed payments are inevitable. To summarise our money system requires us to keep printing more and more money. As we do so, its value decreases. Hence the reason for inflation. The problem is that the money is created as a debt and interest is due to be paid on that debt. How do we get the money to pay for this debt? Well we have to print more money and create more debt of course. And so on and so on. For joe blogs this means a problem. The bank say creates a money system and lends 10 people £100 each total £1000. But the bank want to be paid 10% interest on that loan. So each person has to pay back £110. So each person has to buy and sell, make money and try to turn their £100 into £110. Which will inevitably mean that at least 1 person will lose their £100 to pay the interest for all the others and be left broke.
The other problem with the current system is that due to the resources on the planet being finite, current economics and commerce has to keep finding new things for us to buy in to. Hence the drive to have new phones, the latest tv and the fact that many products have a short life. Things are not built to last. As we keep doing this, there are fewer and fewer resources for us to exploit and make us spend money on having these items. There is loads of information on this, if you look outside the usual economic doctrines and banks, who will try to make sure it stays as it is for as long as possible.
Here are a few starting links:
Ron Paul farewell speech to U.S. congress. Talks about the change needed in the monetary system
Congressman Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress 360pCharles Eisenstein author of sacred economics, talks about money system and a value system
Sacred Economics: An Evening with Charles EisensteinZeitgeist movies. Lots of very interesting information contained. Worth a look, but keep an open mind. Expect to reject some ideas but take from it anything you find useful.
http://www.watchzeitgeist.com/http://www.lietaer.com/2010/09/what-is-the-problem-with-our-current-money-system/
Darwin’s theory isn’t just a theory but reality.
“In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on partial or inconclusive evidence. Scientists have hunches, too, but they call them hypotheses, which are the starting point of all good science.
A scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. A scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that unifies a vast body of reliable knowledge. In other words, a theory is born when a substantial number of hypotheses point to the same conclusion.”
I presume by that statement that you are religious and don’t believe in evolution.
Why would you think that I didn’t believe in evolution? In fact why would you need to believe in evolution at all? If it is scientifically accurate, belief does not come into it at all. I am fully aware of how the hypothesis/theory system works in science. One of sciences greatest mantras is the way in which a theory is adopted and taken on as the current mode of thinking, but is then willing to change, as new and more accurate theories come along which prove to be more useful. So your claim that it is not a theory but reality, is not true. It is just the current reality, until something else comes along to change it. So I am not for one minute saying that Darwin’s theory is wrong, I have no way to dispute it. In fact what Darwin did was remarkable in showing how different species adapted, changed and evolved. I think Darwin’s evolution is by far our best interpretation of how life continues to survive.
However, Darwin’s theory does not really explain how the evolution happens, it suggests the idea that the changes which occur, happen through accidental mutations. Which I have always personally felt lacked a little science if you catch my drift? The rest is wonderful, some of the best scientific writing on the natural world. Current thinking across the sciences, from quantum theory to the latest biological understanding of how genes work, is suggesting a change in that aspect of Darwin’s theory. It has not come fully to light yet, as more hypothesising and testing needs to occur. But I think there will be a greater understanding of the evolutionary process in the near future.
Making presumptions is always a dangerous game, particularly when it involves contentious topics like religion. But for the record I am about as non-religious as they come. I don’t have a problem with anybody else living the life they want to lead. But religion in its current form is a bit past its sell by date. It does not really serve a purpose in the current world. I am not saying it is wrong, but it most definitely hasn’t got it right in many ways. I have no desire to follow doctrine, or to believe that one religon’s God is actually the real god. Or that man can use this image of God to control how we live and think. No thank you. But I would say that I believe that everything is connected and there is more to the universe than we think. Science has become more aware of this through their deepening understanding. I think that a place where science and spiritual understanding converge is a very good place to see the world from, at least for me. However, I do not believe that science has all the answers and never will. The more we understand the greater we realise we understand very little at all, but I like that.
A bit off the spurs topic, but a welcome diversion.
27 Replies
11079 Views