Of course it's daft. One of the biggest problems is the absence of removable (consumer replaceable) batteries.
A different cable for data or charging is not a significant problem, in comparison.
Would it not compromise the utility of the devices to enforce that though? I recognise the upside.. but what is the cost?
I've always preferred that they force them to provide a properly priced replacement service, and make available all parts and knowledge required to enable 3rd parties to do the same. I don't personally mind that I can't replace my battery myself ... I do mind if I am beholden to Apple, and their profit margins, if I want it replaced by a grown up... albeit last time I looked apple would replace my current phone battery for about fifty quid, which seems ok from the company who sell a $1,000 monitor stand.
So the EU may finally mandate that all mobile phones should have the same charger, USB-C. Obviously this mainly impacts iPhones as everyone else, pretty much, already has USB-C.
USB-C is a good cable. I’m all for it being on my next iPhone.
The thing is… since the first iPhone was released Apple has used two cables. The old iPod one (an awful cable in itself) and the current lightening one (excellent… it was years before USB had a comparable standard). Everyone else has gone through dozens of them, including every prior USB connector… all of which have been bad.
So well done the regulators. You have entirely failed to understand the process by which we ended up down to two very good cable options and decided to take an indirect shot at the manufacturer who have led the way on both design and sustainability, and chop the legs off whatever progress we might make towards even better options in the future. Thank god you at least waited long enough for the prevalent USB standard to not be sh!t… cos people have been complaining about Apple shunning USB iPhone chargers since, at least, lightening cables were introduced about a decade ago.
(I like to think it’s ok to dislike everything about Apple and still recognise that this is a daft intervention)
IN my time running a business Ive had to deal with issues of sexual impropriety. 4 times. On 3 occasions it has been a woman that is the perpatrator. Small sample size of course but it's not the headline you normally see.
You’re obviously employing too many sexy men. Have you tried getting them to dress a little less provocatively?
I can certainly see MM paying off the £20m after all, that's for him, not the club. He can still own the ground and get rent for it. And everyone in d*rby might not loathe him forever.
Hard to imagine any fan with half a brain cell not loathing him forever. Hell.. *I* have nothing but loathsome contempt for the guy… yeah, it’s d*rby etc etc.. but he’s taken a football club and screwed it in every possible way, and f*cked off back to his residual millions leaving everything and everyone to rot. What an absolute c*nt.
Once again.. contrast with Nigel Doughty.. he may have been no better as a football club owner, but he was immeasurable better as a supporter of the club and a human being.
I could be wrong, but wasn't it Leicester's first admin and subsequent promotion that led to the whole auto 10 point (as it was) deduction rule in the first place?
Or have I made that up over simplied the circumstances?
If my memory serves me right, this is about correct.
Leicester used administration as a shield. They welched on as much debt as that could, whilst arguing that they needed to keep all their playing assets because getting promoted provided the best outcome for everyone. Once they came out of admin they started flexing their Ill-gotten financial muscle by doing stuff like being able to offer more money to Ricky Scimeca than we, a club cutting costs to pay the bills, were able to do. It’s amazing what your wage budget can look like if you just got a shiny (yet sh!t) new stadium and didn’t bother to pay for it.
From a purely financial perspective it was a valid strategy that worked. But in the context of a competitive league structure and collective interest in some semblance of integrity is was a terrible thing for a club to be able to do.. hence points deductions coming in to try and remove prospect of an immediate competitive advantage to administration.
So the stadium is worth £80m. They have sold it. But they can have it back if the pay off £20m of debt secured on it. That all sounds normal and like it should be totally possible within all of the oh-so-successful rules to ensure financial stability in the league.
Mel Morris has completely f*cked them. And the only rule they broke was having an accounting policy that shifted the timing of FFP losses (not, when it all washes out, the totality of them). And eve that isn’t a settled matter yet.
Well. f*cking. Done. Everyone.
Nigel Doughy paid his bills. Fawaz, perhaps, lucked out in finding the Greeks. I wonder if the end of the current regime, when it comes, might be when we get our taste of this. I don’t think Marikanis has loaded us with any third party debts… but it’s player contracts and tax bills that will f*ck us if he turns the taps off. There but by the grace of god etc.
Gina f*cking G. Not her specifically, or even the infectious pop energy of ‘Ooh Aah Just A Little Bit’… but who the f*ck wants to hear that when grocery shopping? Tone it all down a bit, yeah? There’s a pandemic on.. no need to punch everyone in the face with sound and lights as they trudge about their daily business.
I take back everything I said about the food supply industry in another thread. Nationalise the supermarkets and implement ‘Autism friendly’ retail environments at all times.
Not mundane really... much better than the one I remember feeling in the UK. The sideboard next to me was rattling and and assumed the cat was up to some bouncy shenanigans until the whole world started shaking. He's a graceless potato of a cat... but he's not *that* fat.
The government admits that the market model is ineffective at ensuring adequate supply of goods. They didn't mean to...they just did.
It's been a while. So I'll bite.
In fairness to the market model, which, for quite some time, has done a pretty good job of ensuring that food is abundant, this seems to be an issue ignited by Brexit (essentially a catastrophic government-led intervention in the market), Covid (an unprecedented global event necessitating further market interventions) and a sudden commodity spike (which seems to have a number of factors behind it.. including the Ruskies.. who you're usually delighted to blame for sh!t).
So what they have admitted is that a number of significant events, outside of the control of any market forces and outside of our experience, have created a problem that the market has failed to correct. Few people actually think markets are an answer to everything. That includes your government, who have no problem at all bobbing along with the state accounting for 40% of the economy and, whatever they might say when they get speaking gigs at free market think tanks, are unabashed interventionists.
So yes indeed... markets cannot provide all that we need at all times, and they often fail to provide things that they probably should (such as fertilizer). But what is the point of your point? Government fails too. Always has, always will. So we try to figure out which is the best for each particular job and deal with issues as we find them. You see an event that warrants a dig at *something*, but isn't it just a novel issues thrown up by 'events' that the mixed system we have is responding to?
Whenever people bemoan the role of markets in the food supply chain, I like to ask what their better idea is. Notwithstanding the particular issue here, what alternative system would have done a better job of getting food produced and available, to everyone, over both the very recent (and challenging) times, and over the 40 year ascendancy of Neoglobaliberalthatcherism? Don't tell me what is wrong with the system (of course there is much).. tell me what we should have gone with instead of 'markets'.
I love a good example of market failure as much as the next person who loves a good example of market failure... but the food supply industry is the absolute weirdest one I see bandied about.
It’s all win-win for Rooney though. There are zero expectations, so he gets to bunker down with his squad and learn about managing in a crisis. Every defeat is entirely excusable, every point is a credit, and every utterance about sticking with it and pulling together for the fans is building a narrative about a decent guy doing his best and bing dignified in an impossible situation. It’s a pretty good job for someone like him to have right now.
Wondering when we're going to be held to account for our approach of writing off debt and calling it income. As I understand it, it's more or less what QPR got in trouble for.
Pretty sure the FFP rules clearly envisaged that sort of thing and there’s no fudge to be done. It’s no different to owners injecting funds, and there are strict limits on that which is why you have dangerous guff like the d*rby stadium deal.
...but we would be unwise to draw too many snap conclusions from a sample size of 1 match.
Quite. Buzz me in 12 months. If we’re having the same argument again about whether to stick with the manager, I will confidently conclude I was on the right side of the Hughton debate. Anyone getting ‘I told you so’ feels out of a short term uptick in results or performances is, I think, rather missing the point that most of us preferring to stick with Hughton were making.
13m is what it costs to take a punt on a promising player of that age from a high level club. It was an idiotic signing because FFP means that a club like us can't afford to take that punt. But, having gotten chunky fees from a number of clubs happy to take a punt on our promising young players, we're still up on that particular genre of modern football nonsense.
It seems like an insane amount of money to us because we've been down here so long we've not noticed that Burnley's third choice right back cost 21m*
You would think, but the decision makers on a new manager (at least at this early stage) would surely be at the director level and these are the ones he has been slagging off. Who knows - when Terry is unveiled we know they have been deliberately feeding him duff information
Info can come from the other side too… people in the camp of the persons linked with the position happy to have the word out that their guy is not set to become unavailable. You have to assume that the Athletic has got a terrific network of sources as they have brought a lot of people into the organisation.. and it would be silly not to have them talk to each other.