Spee

Members
  • Content count

    1,434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Spee last won the day on May 18

Spee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

604 Excellent

About Spee

  • Rank
    Diatribe Poster
  • Birthday 19/02/86

Personal Information

  • Location
    Bedford

Converted

  • Homepage
    burymeinexile.com

Recent Profile Visitors

926 profile views
  1. Whilst I certainly understand and share the sentiment of your post, what would the part in bold achieve?
  2. There are many problematic parts to what you have said here: The level of taxation (including the top marginal rate of income tax) was way higher during most of Reagan's presidency at a federal level than at any point since then, 1988 being the exception. The level of taxation was indeed reduced by Thatcher from an eye-watering top rate of 83% to 60%, which remained the case until 1987. It decreased to 40% and remained that way until 2009, when it went back up to 50%. It currently stands at 45% at the additional rate. Yet the tax revenue increased after she came to power and has continued to do so with one exception - 2010. This is likely to be the case because businesses and individuals change their behaviour according to the amount they are being taxed. The Laffer curve, whilst not being a perfect model, postulates that there is an optimal for the highest tax yield. There are arguments for and against which 'side' of the curve the U.S. and most European countries are on; what is agreed upon however is that revenues would drop quickly on the right and actually be counter-productive. Nevertheless, some groups and individuals support having taxes extremely high on the wealthiest for political and symbolical reasons rather than because it will actually have a net benefit to the system. Yes, you're right. Some "essential services" are subsidised by taxpayers in a system known as corportarism/crony capitalism and tends to be disliked by almost everyone, neither having the 'benefits' of a nationalised system nor the lack of state interventionism/special interest groups and businesses directly influencing the state that those of a pro-market persuasion would like. As an example, British Rail was of course privatised in 1994 but Network Rail is considered a public body (and was defined as such in 2014 by the ONS), so even the entire rail system in the UK is more complex than meets the eye. In my view, the state isn't going anywhere - in fact, its 'size' (however you define that) is increasing, not decreasing. There are very few areas of modern life that the state doesn't touch. Whether that's a good thing is entirely up to you. The poorest and most vulnerable should of course receive the bulk of help. I don't always think that should be the state but in terms of benefits, the system should be made much simpler and feel a lot less punitive. I don't trust any government to spend the tax receipts wisely and/or effectively. There are always vested interests of any stripe behind the scenes, 'pet projects' to ensure certain individuals have a 'legacy', politically motivated taxes that people find ways to avoid (defeating the object of the tax in the first place), HS2, the very concept of inheritance tax... the list goes on. Low wages are partly the result of the National Minimum Wage - a mechanism like most others brought in with 'good intentions' but it has created an artificial barrier for some people to find meaningful employment (going back to #6). It also tends to drive up unemployment and reduce other in-work benefits. Working tax credits keep many people in a low pay trap. The NHS, which as an organisation always seems to be above real scrutiny, is doing too much as things stand. Throwing more money at something doesn't always solve the problems it faces. It needs a proper review of what it can and can't provide and cut accordingly. Private companies could do more of the non-emergency care currently offered by the NHS.
  3. Not something you'll ever catch me saying... Let's underline just how good Miller was last season in front of goal - he scored the fourth most in the league of any player aged 21 or under: Ivan Toney (Shrewsbury / Scunthorpe; 21) - 13 goals (3 penalties) in 2,647 minutes = 1 goal every 204 minutes Ashley Hunter (Fleetwood; 21) - 8 goals in 2,411 minutes = 1 goal every 301 minutes Callum Camps (Rochdale; 21) - 8 goals (1 direct free kick) in 3,417 minutes = 1 goal every 427 minutes George Miller (Bury; 18) - 7 goals in 1,059 minutes = 1 goal every 151 minutes No-one is saying he's good enough to play for Middlesbrough at this moment in time. No-one is saying he isn't raw and needs to improve a lot in many areas. What I am saying however is that there is a tendency to downplay how good Bury players are and/or can be in the future in some quarters. Just think to yourself: when was the last time any Bury player 18 or under, whether they were on loan or came through the academy, scored as many as Miller in his first 'full' season of senior football? Not even David Nugent did - he scored 4 goals in 1,340 minutes in 2002/2003 at the same age in the fourth tier. I'm not suggesting Miller will necessarily go on to be as successful as Nugent in his career but some perspective is required. I also seem to recall some fans writing the latter off until the last few months of his Bury career, but I digress. When Miller goes (because he will at some point), the board cannot allow him or any other 'asset' to go on the cheap. They are absolutely vital to securing the future of the football club.
  4. But apart from that, he's okay, yeah?
  5. If I was feeling particularly 'clinical', I'd posit whether Bury should play Radcliffe Borough every pre-season in perpetuity. That said, I'd like to think that the club have already helped them following the fire and perhaps they will again via the U18s and other means. There is also the chance that the pre-season fixture list that was initially published will be added to - you'll note if you read it that there was a nine-day gap between the first and second match. That could be accounted for in a number of ways, of course but there is a chance another match could be fitted in.
  6. New home and away shirts announced and released in time for half term... in October.
  7. Yep. I was hoping Luton would make it up for that very reason.
  8. Yes, but there are ways of putting things...
  9. Pretty sure the U18s will be playing against Radcliffe.
  10. Zero. He hasn't played a game of competitive football since February 2016.
  11. I can be accused of several things in my life but not getting behind Bury isn't one of them. I dedicate hours of my pretty scant spare time every week to writing about the club in what I feel is a fair and balanced way and when the opportunities arise, I go to matches. As for enjoying the ride, it would be a lot easier to do that without feeling like the sword of Damocles is hovering over the football club should things not go exactly to plan, which is more than a distinct possibility.
  12. He did. Look but at the stats and highlights for proof of that. Whilst undervalued as a player by some, it was nevertheless probably the best decision by all parties.
  13. I think that's a bit of a stretch. We all have access to the publicly available accounts - that is not to say they are necessarily wholly representative but they are strongly indicative.
  14. Really? I've praised all the players to the hilt that have come in... being concerned about how the club are financing them and whether they can be part of a sustainable, long-term strategy is not negative. Rochdale aren't perfect by any means but they are run in a way that allows them to continue season after season without too much financial tumult. I have previously posted on their forum when the two sides met last month in the league and have found that 99% of the posters on there to be reasonable and knowledgeable. I want my son to grow up and, if he's interested in football, support Bury (i.e. they still exist). Is that too much to ask?