The mancityfans.net football forum

zuricity wrote:^^^,

Which owner ??


Britain wasn't exactly light years ahead giving women the vote either .

As it stands , every vote in Switzerland counts.

Fixing polling boundaries as in the UK and having so many peoples votes deemed worthless because they live in the wrong voting zone is not democratic . ( Neither so in the US ).

The Swiss male or female has a vote that matters.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to Royalty.

zuricity wrote:^^^,

Britain wasn't exactly light years ahead giving women the vote either .

As it stands , every vote in Switzerland counts.

Fixing polling boundaries as in the UK and having so many peoples votes deemed worthless because they live in the wrong voting zone is not democratic . ( Neither so in the US ).

The Swiss male or female has a vote that matters.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to Royalty.

belleebee wrote:Your first two/three sentences are factual statements of your position and, as such, can’t really be argued with. Your third/fourth sentence, I didn’t really follow (Shakespeare?) so can’t comment on. Your final sentence, I guess, is the contentious part. I don’t really wish to debate this further, simply because of the thread title (and forum), but personally I believe there are far greater evils resulting from the decisions of elected politicians than any of the actions of the modern royals. We live in a very imperfect world and our time and efforts are best directed at the truly enormous challenges that face us rather than the relatively minor creases that some might think spoil what is otherwise a pretty picture. (Incidentally, notwithstanding the above, the fact that Murdoch and his vicious corporation are vehemently anti-royal, in my view provides a prima facie case for taking the opposite stance).

zuricity wrote:^^^
my point is. I don't understand or see the relevance of the remark about a Swiss President , he or she , gets paid . That person was voted in . No lobbed Scimitar, from a watery tart.
Look at what those Royal scammers were up to today, whilst many poor people hit the food banks in the UK.

belleebee wrote:Might I suggest you write to our esteemed owner to apprise him of your view? . Also, Switzerland is possibly not the best example to use as a model of democratic principles as it's only 51 years since women were given the vote there! Beyond flippancy, I think one's got to be pragmatic sometimes. Monarchy is clearly an anachronism and extremely difficult to justify on any sound constitutional grounds. Even so, despite being a lifelong (democratic) socialist, I'm comfortable with it as it seems to work for the UK and supported (I think) by a large majority of the British public. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

johnny crossan wrote:

zuricity wrote:^^^
my point is. I don't understand or see the relevance of the remark about a Swiss President , he or she , gets paid . That person was voted in . No lobbed Scimitar, from a watery tart.
Look at what those Royal scammers were up to today, whilst many poor people hit the food banks in the UK.

pretty rich from someone praising a country whose banks are still laundering Nazi loot from the holocaust. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-698398

PeterParker wrote:I see that Nunez is not £64m on Sky
With addons

kinkylola wrote:you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

johnny crossan wrote:

kinkylola wrote:you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

? - if you mean HMQ she doesn't - that's the point

Sparklehorse wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:

kinkylola wrote:you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you

? - if you mean HMQ she doesn't - that's the point

The point is…….’burn her’ !!!!!!!!

Dimples wrote:Don't know how accurate the figs are but Nunez is supposedly on £100K a week with Diaz on £56K a week.
If accurate both are significantly underpaid compared to their transfer values of approx £85M and £40M and also what they could earn elsewhere. In addition Nunez is supposedly number 15 in the list of Liverpool top earners.
They are being hyped up as world class but being paid as average players.
If they deliver, it will not take long for them to start demanding pay packets that match their level of play.
More problems for Liverpool.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Dimples wrote:Don't know how accurate the figs are but Nunez is supposedly on £100K a week with Diaz on £56K a week.
If accurate both are significantly underpaid compared to their transfer values of approx £85M and £40M and also what they could earn elsewhere. In addition Nunez is supposedly number 15 in the list of Liverpool top earners.
They are being hyped up as world class but being paid as average players.
If they deliver, it will not take long for them to start demanding pay packets that match their level of play.
More problems for Liverpool.

It's hard to believe that players who were in demand, would move for salaries like that. They also know that liverpool (allegedly) wont pay a huge amount when it comes to contract renewal. Something doesn't add up - there's absolutely no way in the world these guys are moving for less salary than they would have got at United (for example) all for the love of playing in front of the kop.

There must be some other guaranteed payments going on if these sorts of numbers are anywhere close to true - and liverpool are just playing the media with a reputation for financial stewardship that isn't really warranted

In the last deloitte survey I could find for 19/20, City at 351m total payroll, only marginally above liverpool at 326m, which makes you laugh at the notion of liverpool being a sustainably run club. If they are paying peanuts on salaries, then clearly they are paying massive incentives out. But if you dig a little deeper, they have a huge bunch of players on around 100k a week who hardly ever play. We had a squad of (I think) 17 last year, which is admittedly paper thin, but suggests that based on a similar wage bill, our approach of paying more but having less players appears to pay dividends when it comes to winning trophies.

This year by the way, the net spend league over 5 years (now countinho's out of the equation) makes very interesting reading - in fact once we've shipped a few out this summer, we will actually have a lower 5 year net spend than them.