Rayvin

Can you name a couple? Like, a couple of really really good CEOs that we couldn't do without? I can't. Can think of plenty of shit ones though. If the best ones leave they'll be replaced, and there are plenty of capable people in the ranks of directors around the country. CEOs are just the ones at the top at the minute. Aside from this of course, I'm not even proposing that their pay is decreased or capped necessarily - I'm proposing that it's tied to the average earnings of their employees. So that if they (the CEO) want higher pay, they have to achieve this for everyone who works for them. What might happen that could be detrimental, would be that certain industries end up attracting far better CEOs than others - for instance, banking would still be subject to high rates of pay as I suspect their average pay level is a lot higher than, say, supermarkets. But it could even be tailored per industry, and used as an incentivising factor to support any industry which is ailing - for instance you could be more liberal with the cap in the steel industry, and attract better CEOs. Ultimately, the effect of this would be to hopefully increase company performance by motivating employees to achieve the best possible results in the same form as CEOs are, and in turn ensuring that companies pay their staff fairly.

Speaking as someone who employs low wage immigrants, I can safely confirm to you that European people of generally higher competence and educational standard are available much more cheaply than the same standard in British people. So that is perhaps what is meant. On Zero Hours contracts, you're right. Good thing he has targeted those... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-vows-ban-zero-8535174

That's quite an assumption. I reckon it isn't as difficult as I'm suggesting. I think it needs experience of course, but I've seen some very good ones and some very poor ones so far, and I'm only 8 years into my career. Look, I can see the point you're making but I just don't think it'll actually hit home. For one thing, moving to Europe will be more difficult post-Brexit anyway. For another thing, where would all of these CEOs go? It's not like they'd necessarily be able to walk into better paying jobs elsewhere. And they'd be leaving behind their lives, their homes, their families, all in pursuit of a bit more money? Because they didn't believe in paying their workers fairly? Not a good look, really.

An upper earnings cap doesn't solve much at all - it's just a political gambit to appeal to the 'masses'. I suppose he could make the point that it combats income inequality to a degree, but I prefer my solution

His points appears to be that the damage being done by immigration is occurring at a working class level - i.e. low paid jobs are going to immigrants rather than the working classes. If this can be stopped, the majority's reason for supporting an exit from the EU is terminated; however, we do rely on immigrants for higher skilled work that we can't source within the UK as it stands, so he has identified that the influx of these people would need to be maintained.

You can't be serious. Are you just arguing for the sake of it or do you really think that it is sustainable to have earning gaps as high as what we're seeing? What I've suggested here doesn't even cap anyone's earnings, it just ensures that pay is more equitably distributed through the company. Also, most CEOs, the vast majority I would suggest, aren't great. If they up sticks it's no great loss, they can be replaced. They get replaced all the time anyway in the merry-go-round of directorships. Lose our best business leaders to other countries Like fuck would we, that's the same sort of nonsense as 'the banks will all leave if we hold them accountable!!!' Bollocks.

Which is what I said tbf. The only difference is that with his plans for low paid workers, his version might actually have legs. If he can make hiring British people simply more appealing than hiring immigrants, then the market will reject the aspects of freedom of movement that people are actually concerned about - low paid workers. No, I don't know how he would do this - but I don't think the Brexit Tories have come up with anything approaching that as an explanation of how the same goal might be achieved. His position seems to be that we need freedom of movement at a middle class level to ensure that vital public services (the NHS) are maintained, but that it needs to be stopped at a working class level. He didn't use those terms but I'm just calling it for what it is.

It was just a hypothetical figure The main point still stands - I think it'd be a good way of ensuring everyone benefits from the company's success.

I'm conflicted about this policy depending on where they set the line The problem I suppose is that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. People might simply look at the maximum cap and decide that it isn't worth it and take some manner of easier route through life (The Gemmill way). That said, I can see the need for something. I'd suggest that the cap is relative based on the average earnings of employees throughout the company. CEO pay can't be more than 50% (for instance) higher than the average salary level within the organisation. Thus, they're incentivised to pay people well and make the company work for all employees.

There you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration Believes we can be better off out, wants single market and immigration controls (I know, impossible, but the Tories are saying the same sorts of things), wants economic restructuring so that employing migrants simply isn't as advantageous as employing Brits. All sorts of Labour people BTL on the Guardian are up in arms about it, people talking about defections to the Lib Dems and so on.

As a snapshot in time, it looks mad. Worked back through the events that preceded it, I think it looks borderline inevitable.

Your board must fucking love you EDIT - The Arsene Wenger of FM. £250m to spend but no inclination to use it.

The military rule one is surprising tbf. But I think the issue here is that (looking at Britain) you have people on the 'Remain' side who now think democracy is a waste of time as it doesn't offer solutions in the best interests of the people (I sympathise with this but tbf, I thought this about democracy even before the referendum), and Brexiters who think democracy is constantly being perverted by elites and special interests. Which is also a view I can sympathise with. Basically, trust in the centreground is failing/has failed. We also have stable authoritarian states in play whose people do not appear to be subjected to widespread suffering (as far as we can easily see) such as China. I would caveat all of this by adding, for consistency, that I think we're in a sham of a democracy anyway

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html?_r=2 Belief that it is absolutely imperative to live in a democracy is falling rapidly amongst younger people. In the 1930s it was around 70%. It's now at about 25%. Not that politics, our system, or our parties are failing or anything. 1 in 6 Americans are now happy with the idea of living under military rule...! Compared to 1 in 16 about 20 years ago.

Agreed but he clearly does have time for it. Looking at this honestly, it very much appears that he's going to be a PR president rather than a substance president. Maybe that's a good thing for all of us. Trump with substance might very well derail global affairs.

Maybe all this will dry up when he's sworn in. He surely won't have time for any of it.

I take it you're following him, ewerk What did he go on to say about Streep? I'm actually kind of curious... or did he just leave it like that like that?

I don't see what the big deal about offending people is anyway - I would be mortified if my taking offence at something cost someone their job, and people who think this sort of thing is justified are, in my view, incredibly insecure about themselves. If he's been sacked for recent performances then that's another story of course.

Also true but then, you'd think Rafa would be aware of that. Which would beg the question of why he isn't adapting.

There might be an argument to say that if Rafa deviates from his system, the players will be less well versed in it. If we consider this year as a 'training' season, the more deeply they understand his philosophy, the better it should be applied next year. It probably all comes down to whether or not you think we'll be promoted. If we're not changing the system, presumably Rafa is confident.

Fair enough, does sound like a good reason

What's so appealing about Brentford away, exactly? Is it just nearer for you guys..? Which would be odd since (Fish) you live at a different end of the country now.

I recall someone saying earlier on in the season that Rafa has always been particularly successful against bigger clubs (i.e. those who are prepared to attack rather than sit behind the ball). I'd expect that to be ideal for next year, but there's certainly an unwillingness on his part to really force the issue when we need a goal. That said, one more game and Shelvey is back now, so let's just hope that we can squeak a win against Brentford and then move upwards and onwards.

He isn't going to sell up without his debt repaid. He won't just write it off. And with the debt factored in, we're not an attractive option. We need to go up, pay off the debt, and then he'll finally leave us. That said, I'm not all that bothered about him being here at the moment since he seems to have learned some lessons.