comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure abt that. As you know I was pro Brexit but recognised that there maybe a medium term recession especially because of the ignorant man now in the white house. However it very much depends on how the UK positions itself globally. I think Trump is on his way out one way or another and I suspect whoever takesover will reinstitute TTIP and TPP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically it was the UK who were one of the main objectors to TTIP.
UKRep had sought a carve out on procurement as US pharma companies wanted access to our healthcare markets.
Given how sensitive safeguarding the NHS is to the majority of UK citizens talks stalled. There were of course other reasons (phytosanitary/ sanitary protections etc).
But the notion the UK can have a NHS and a FTA with the US is one of fantasy.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The short term negative effect on the economy was inevitable but things like highest wage rises, more British nationals taking jobs and less 0 hours is a reversal of trends that's only been going one way in the last 10 years. As for Brexit though May's deal is useless and I'd rather remain than go ahead with that.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An impossibility given UKG's commitment to the Belfast agreement. Any divergence from EU regs creates barriers to trade.
If we do Brexit we'll be tied to the EU until sci-fi type technology is invented that can be erected in Carlingford Lough (splits NI/ROI).
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure abt that. As you know I was pro Brexit but recognised that there maybe a medium term recession especially because of the ignorant man now in the white house. However it very much depends on how the UK positions itself globally. I think Trump is on his way out one way or another and I suspect whoever takesover will reinstitute TTIP and TPP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically it was the UK who were one of the main objectors to TTIP.
UKRep had sought a carve out on procurement as US pharma companies wanted access to our healthcare markets.
Given how sensitive safeguarding the NHS is to the majority of UK citizens talks stalled. There were of course other reasons (phytosanitary/ sanitary protections etc).
But the notion the UK can have a NHS and a FTA with the US is one of fantasy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually each government was to be allowed to safeguard national services within TTIP. That was the aim of final negotiation. Funnily enough it is the rise of 'nationalism', prompted by Russia that put an end to it. Thats the true irony. It was the safest way to transit safely into a global decision making environment. With the global threats facing humanity such as global warming it is the only way the human race is going to survive.
I think we discussed this years ago. I remember at the time forecasting what has happened in Italy, Hungry, Austria, Poland, Germany etc. The rise of fascism was inevitable because of the way the EU operates. Macron is right that without the EU merging into a country there is serious danger local conflicts. The UK was always going to be a hindrance to Eurozone stabilising.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An impossibility given UKG's commitment to the Belfast agreement. Any divergence from EU regs creates barriers to trade.
If we do Brexit we'll be tied to the EU until sci-fi type technology is invented that can be erected in Carlingford Lough (splits NI/ROI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will be fudged. Its always going to complicated whether the UK wanted Norway type EEA membership or a Canada ++. May's Brexit agreement will end up changing as well down the line. Its the Eurpean way.
Johnson was talking about a SuperCanada the other day WFT!
But even with a Ceta (plus services which due to post Lisbon MFN clauses is impossible) deal it doesn’t solve customs.
I believe the revised withdrawal agreement has removed the need for a backstop, essentially committing the UK to the rules of the SM/CU in perpetuity.
Johnson fuming as he states we’ll no longer have a say in making the rules that bind us. Which is ironically what he campaigned for during the referendum..
Have a feeling we’re headed for another GE, or some kind of people's vote.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m always surprised when people advocate less trade with our nearest neighbours, who have values similar to ours, in favour of doing something with a totalitarian regime with a human rights record we left behind in the Middle Ages - but each to his own.
All depends on how this is implemented. Homegrown or a UK National could be reclassified as being a UK resident for at least 5 years in which case, players could feasibly apply to be British nationals in order to help the club meet the quotas. That’s what happened to me on Football Manager 18.
———
Doesn’t happen in real life. Eric Diet is a British national but doesn’t qualify as homegrown due to being brought up in Sporting’s academy. Owen Hargreaves was the same.
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
In regard to football the problem (as I see it) is not reciprocal agreements on labour (which is set to be unchanged – even in the event of no-deal) but issues like recognition of qualifications (for coaches/doctors/trainer/dieticians etc etc) and ensuring players and staff have valid insurance.
Whilst the FCA are working on an interim permission scheme (to allow UK lenders to passport into the EU) in the event of ‘no-deal’ if a player insured in the UK played in Europe, and was injured their insurance would not be valid.
It’s based on number of international caps, and ranking of said nation. I believe there’s a process where an application for special players can be made, often the case for talented uncapped players.
It wouldn’t have a big impact on the known and well established players, but could cause problems for scouting lesser known players around the globe. And as the article states will put a brake on poaching players under 18 from around Europe.
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m always surprised when people advocate less trade with our nearest neighbours, who have values similar to ours, in favour of doing something with a totalitarian regime with a human rights record we left behind in the Middle Ages - but each to his own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats because you assume UK is some trading power these days. We don't make anything. Thats why we have a trade deficit with the EU. And I am not sure why you think we are somehow going to stop trading with EU because of Brexit? The UKs economy is totally centric on the financial sector. In fact thats how countries work in modern global economy. Some countries are totally dependant on manufacturing like China, others like India very much dependant on their service industry, others on raw materials others on design and IP, others on food production. The reason why I mentioned Singapore is because their economy is very similar, acting like a financial hub in Asia.
And I am not sure why you are conflating human rights into the issue of trade. Singapore isn't successful because of totalitarianism.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it was already mentioned that the new rules will relax the present stringent requirements.
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it was already mentioned that the new rules will relax the present stringent requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not seen anything about this. Please could you provide a link?
Also another factor (apparently) is that current permit rules sometimes make an exception for a player whose transfer fee is more than the average fee over the last year. If true, this would increase the disparity in talent between the richer and poorer clubs.
In my FM experience it is far more difficult to get work permits for young foreign talent after Brexit
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will if the FA get their way and tighten foreign quotas. Their proposal is in exchange for an FA endorsement for work permits. This may not effect too many of the top clubs but it could have an impact on the rest of the premier league who may then vote for such quota rules.
As I mentioned earlier, I think this is something the FA will continue to push regardless of Brexit.
They are targeting winning the world cup in the next decade. They won’t achieve this goal with the current attitude towards homegrown players from most premier league clubs.
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
comment by RonAlvinho - Victoria Concordia Pathetic (U6117)
posted 7 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 9 minutes ago
Maybe there should've been a basic test for everyone to take prior to being given a vote...& I mean fairly basic
That would have seen a different outcome I feel...I voted stay personally, but was intrigued to see what the leave vote would bring when it was announced...still don't know...many don't, - and i'm talking about the very many who voted leave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfect. Shall we do this test for every general election too? As it's not like the GE vote lead us here in the first place?
Why stop there, "stupid people" shouldn't vote in local elections either. God knows what mayhem they may cause.
While we're at it lets sensor what they can read and watch online too, that'll be the right thing to do in 2018. The world would be such a better place if only those who could pass an exam got to vote. Works well in schools right? Only those who get good grades offer any benefit to society.
In fact let's just go that extra mile and say that anybody who has a differing opinion should just be gathered up and executed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow..
I throw in a random/flippant remark & someone got right on their soapbox...that's brilliant
I think the executed thing is probably going too far though ron...be sensible now...
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
I've not seen anything about this. Please could you provide a link?
Also another factor (apparently) is that current permit rules sometimes make an exception for a player whose transfer fee is more than the average fee over the last year. If true, this would increase the disparity in talent between the richer and poorer clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry it was a discussion on the radio. But I assume it will be so because the clubs will not be able to differentiate between nationalities. So I suspect it will be easier to sign a young player directly from Ivory Coast rather than a stop over for the player in France or Belgium as is now or for a South American kid without a stopover in Portugal or Spain.
Obviously everything is in negotiation at the moment between the FA, the premier league and the home office. But I cannot see why the UK will endanger a multi-billion industry it has created in football despite the usual national overtones.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure why you think I want a hard Brexit? My opinion hasn't changed from 2016 when we discussed why I believed we will end up with Brexit in the first place. I thought at the time that the EU will have to come up with a different structure for those not in the Eurozone. Although better growth rates have lessened the immediacy of the Euro problem it hasn't gone away. The EU needs to reduce the gap between fiscal and monetary policies. You cannot allow countries to control fiscal policies and run up huge debt. And with the election of ultra nationalist governments across the EU thats going to get far worse. I said at the time I am sort of glad we are out of it although I recognise we are going to go through pain the short term.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've nailed it there.
Brexit does nothing but hurt financial and service sectors as in effect it moves them all outside the EU.
There has been quite a steady trickle of European offices opening and jobs quietly vanishing here and turning up in various European cities.
I would presume this deal won't stop it.
comment by Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will if the FA get their way and tighten foreign quotas. Their proposal is in exchange for an FA endorsement for work permits. This may not effect too many of the top clubs but it could have an impact on the rest of the premier league who may then vote for such quota rules.
As I mentioned earlier, I think this is something the FA will continue to push regardless of Brexit.
They are targeting winning the world cup in the next decade. They won’t achieve this goal with the current attitude towards homegrown players from most premier league clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they won't achieve this PERIOD.
the reality is france won world cup with a large proportion of its squad playing outsdie france.
lloris
pavard
Umtiti
varane
hernandez
Matuidi
pogba
kante
greizmann
giroud
ONLY mbappe playing in france. the same excerise can be applied to the bench.
National teams with leagues who IMPORT players are not going so well in general. spain has done ok but the time has passed now, italy fell away, germany has too.
It seems to me the only way to progress is to have a bigger pool of players across europe playing and cherry pick what you need.
Right now only one england player plays abroad (no not Rooney)
Sign in if you want to comment
Brexit and British football clubs
Page 6 of 15
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure abt that. As you know I was pro Brexit but recognised that there maybe a medium term recession especially because of the ignorant man now in the white house. However it very much depends on how the UK positions itself globally. I think Trump is on his way out one way or another and I suspect whoever takesover will reinstitute TTIP and TPP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically it was the UK who were one of the main objectors to TTIP.
UKRep had sought a carve out on procurement as US pharma companies wanted access to our healthcare markets.
Given how sensitive safeguarding the NHS is to the majority of UK citizens talks stalled. There were of course other reasons (phytosanitary/ sanitary protections etc).
But the notion the UK can have a NHS and a FTA with the US is one of fantasy.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The short term negative effect on the economy was inevitable but things like highest wage rises, more British nationals taking jobs and less 0 hours is a reversal of trends that's only been going one way in the last 10 years. As for Brexit though May's deal is useless and I'd rather remain than go ahead with that.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An impossibility given UKG's commitment to the Belfast agreement. Any divergence from EU regs creates barriers to trade.
If we do Brexit we'll be tied to the EU until sci-fi type technology is invented that can be erected in Carlingford Lough (splits NI/ROI).
posted on 14/11/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure abt that. As you know I was pro Brexit but recognised that there maybe a medium term recession especially because of the ignorant man now in the white house. However it very much depends on how the UK positions itself globally. I think Trump is on his way out one way or another and I suspect whoever takesover will reinstitute TTIP and TPP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically it was the UK who were one of the main objectors to TTIP.
UKRep had sought a carve out on procurement as US pharma companies wanted access to our healthcare markets.
Given how sensitive safeguarding the NHS is to the majority of UK citizens talks stalled. There were of course other reasons (phytosanitary/ sanitary protections etc).
But the notion the UK can have a NHS and a FTA with the US is one of fantasy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually each government was to be allowed to safeguard national services within TTIP. That was the aim of final negotiation. Funnily enough it is the rise of 'nationalism', prompted by Russia that put an end to it. Thats the true irony. It was the safest way to transit safely into a global decision making environment. With the global threats facing humanity such as global warming it is the only way the human race is going to survive.
I think we discussed this years ago. I remember at the time forecasting what has happened in Italy, Hungry, Austria, Poland, Germany etc. The rise of fascism was inevitable because of the way the EU operates. Macron is right that without the EU merging into a country there is serious danger local conflicts. The UK was always going to be a hindrance to Eurozone stabilising.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An impossibility given UKG's commitment to the Belfast agreement. Any divergence from EU regs creates barriers to trade.
If we do Brexit we'll be tied to the EU until sci-fi type technology is invented that can be erected in Carlingford Lough (splits NI/ROI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will be fudged. Its always going to complicated whether the UK wanted Norway type EEA membership or a Canada ++. May's Brexit agreement will end up changing as well down the line. Its the Eurpean way.
posted on 14/11/18
Johnson was talking about a SuperCanada the other day WFT!
But even with a Ceta (plus services which due to post Lisbon MFN clauses is impossible) deal it doesn’t solve customs.
I believe the revised withdrawal agreement has removed the need for a backstop, essentially committing the UK to the rules of the SM/CU in perpetuity.
Johnson fuming as he states we’ll no longer have a say in making the rules that bind us. Which is ironically what he campaigned for during the referendum..
Have a feeling we’re headed for another GE, or some kind of people's vote.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there will be fluctuations short term (look at the economic growth during the summer / world cup) but long term (post Brexit) every recognised forecast (including the UKG's) recognise there will be a downturn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The true measure of wealth is the ability for the economy to generate it. The economy only had to shrink less than 1% for the benefits of leaving the EU to be outweighed by the costs.
Since the referendum the economy has shrunk by 2.5% - and we haven't even left yet.
Anybody who still thinks we are better off financially after leaving the EU, in the short and medium term, is either a fantasist or too consumed by their own doctrine to consider the facts. In the long term nobody really knows with certainty, but an economy that is so reliant on services as ours will need trade deals as a necessity.
Other perceived benefits/concerns of leaving the EU are worthy of debate (such as this football one), but being financially better off as a result really isn't. We won't be!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m always surprised when people advocate less trade with our nearest neighbours, who have values similar to ours, in favour of doing something with a totalitarian regime with a human rights record we left behind in the Middle Ages - but each to his own.
posted on 14/11/18
All depends on how this is implemented. Homegrown or a UK National could be reclassified as being a UK resident for at least 5 years in which case, players could feasibly apply to be British nationals in order to help the club meet the quotas. That’s what happened to me on Football Manager 18.
———
Doesn’t happen in real life. Eric Diet is a British national but doesn’t qualify as homegrown due to being brought up in Sporting’s academy. Owen Hargreaves was the same.
posted on 14/11/18
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
posted on 14/11/18
In regard to football the problem (as I see it) is not reciprocal agreements on labour (which is set to be unchanged – even in the event of no-deal) but issues like recognition of qualifications (for coaches/doctors/trainer/dieticians etc etc) and ensuring players and staff have valid insurance.
Whilst the FCA are working on an interim permission scheme (to allow UK lenders to passport into the EU) in the event of ‘no-deal’ if a player insured in the UK played in Europe, and was injured their insurance would not be valid.
posted on 14/11/18
It’s based on number of international caps, and ranking of said nation. I believe there’s a process where an application for special players can be made, often the case for talented uncapped players.
It wouldn’t have a big impact on the known and well established players, but could cause problems for scouting lesser known players around the globe. And as the article states will put a brake on poaching players under 18 from around Europe.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 17 seconds ago
No for the last 6 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If the UK positions itself as Singapore has done for China there is going to be a huge benefit medium and long terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m always surprised when people advocate less trade with our nearest neighbours, who have values similar to ours, in favour of doing something with a totalitarian regime with a human rights record we left behind in the Middle Ages - but each to his own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats because you assume UK is some trading power these days. We don't make anything. Thats why we have a trade deficit with the EU. And I am not sure why you think we are somehow going to stop trading with EU because of Brexit? The UKs economy is totally centric on the financial sector. In fact thats how countries work in modern global economy. Some countries are totally dependant on manufacturing like China, others like India very much dependant on their service industry, others on raw materials others on design and IP, others on food production. The reason why I mentioned Singapore is because their economy is very similar, acting like a financial hub in Asia.
And I am not sure why you are conflating human rights into the issue of trade. Singapore isn't successful because of totalitarianism.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it was already mentioned that the new rules will relax the present stringent requirements.
posted on 14/11/18
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
Does anyone on this thread know how work permits are awarded to non-EU nationals?
If you do, then that's your answer to the OP question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work permits on non-eu nationals are quite restrictive and generally only given to those who have played for their national team a certain proportion of the time over the previous few years. The exact proportion depends on the national team in question, with better nations needing a lower number.
At least I think this is the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe it was already mentioned that the new rules will relax the present stringent requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not seen anything about this. Please could you provide a link?
Also another factor (apparently) is that current permit rules sometimes make an exception for a player whose transfer fee is more than the average fee over the last year. If true, this would increase the disparity in talent between the richer and poorer clubs.
posted on 14/11/18
In my FM experience it is far more difficult to get work permits for young foreign talent after Brexit
posted on 14/11/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will if the FA get their way and tighten foreign quotas. Their proposal is in exchange for an FA endorsement for work permits. This may not effect too many of the top clubs but it could have an impact on the rest of the premier league who may then vote for such quota rules.
As I mentioned earlier, I think this is something the FA will continue to push regardless of Brexit.
They are targeting winning the world cup in the next decade. They won’t achieve this goal with the current attitude towards homegrown players from most premier league clubs.
posted on 14/11/18
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by RonAlvinho - Victoria Concordia Pathetic (U6117)
posted 7 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 9 minutes ago
Maybe there should've been a basic test for everyone to take prior to being given a vote...& I mean fairly basic
That would have seen a different outcome I feel...I voted stay personally, but was intrigued to see what the leave vote would bring when it was announced...still don't know...many don't, - and i'm talking about the very many who voted leave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfect. Shall we do this test for every general election too? As it's not like the GE vote lead us here in the first place?
Why stop there, "stupid people" shouldn't vote in local elections either. God knows what mayhem they may cause.
While we're at it lets sensor what they can read and watch online too, that'll be the right thing to do in 2018. The world would be such a better place if only those who could pass an exam got to vote. Works well in schools right? Only those who get good grades offer any benefit to society.
In fact let's just go that extra mile and say that anybody who has a differing opinion should just be gathered up and executed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow..
I throw in a random/flippant remark & someone got right on their soapbox...that's brilliant
I think the executed thing is probably going too far though ron...be sensible now...
posted on 14/11/18
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 21 minutes ago
I've not seen anything about this. Please could you provide a link?
Also another factor (apparently) is that current permit rules sometimes make an exception for a player whose transfer fee is more than the average fee over the last year. If true, this would increase the disparity in talent between the richer and poorer clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry it was a discussion on the radio. But I assume it will be so because the clubs will not be able to differentiate between nationalities. So I suspect it will be easier to sign a young player directly from Ivory Coast rather than a stop over for the player in France or Belgium as is now or for a South American kid without a stopover in Portugal or Spain.
Obviously everything is in negotiation at the moment between the FA, the premier league and the home office. But I cannot see why the UK will endanger a multi-billion industry it has created in football despite the usual national overtones.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 4 minutes ago
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure why you think I want a hard Brexit? My opinion hasn't changed from 2016 when we discussed why I believed we will end up with Brexit in the first place. I thought at the time that the EU will have to come up with a different structure for those not in the Eurozone. Although better growth rates have lessened the immediacy of the Euro problem it hasn't gone away. The EU needs to reduce the gap between fiscal and monetary policies. You cannot allow countries to control fiscal policies and run up huge debt. And with the election of ultra nationalist governments across the EU thats going to get far worse. I said at the time I am sort of glad we are out of it although I recognise we are going to go through pain the short term.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
J99
You're right (deficit) but our financial services exports far outweigh our trade deficit with the EU giving UKplc an over surplus with the EU (and the US – which Donald is keen to address).
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06193/SN06193.pdf
As one may expect there is no duty (customs) on financial services, yet the UKG is pursuing a strategy that largely ignores our largest export sector.
So why leave the CU and by default the Common Commercial Policy for a relatively small part of our economy. Which has grown exponentially thanks to the CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've nailed it there.
Brexit does nothing but hurt financial and service sectors as in effect it moves them all outside the EU.
There has been quite a steady trickle of European offices opening and jobs quietly vanishing here and turning up in various European cities.
I would presume this deal won't stop it.
posted on 14/11/18
comment by Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 4 minutes ago
Gents
For those who think that the rules are already quite stringent, you should see some of the dross that we've got up in Scotland who have qualified under 'exceptional talent'. The rules are already far from stringent.
It'll create a lot of bureaucracy but ultimately I'd be surprised if it had much material impact on your clubs, particularly in the higher divisions. You'll still sign the same players, you'll just need additional admin support for all the additional paperwork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will if the FA get their way and tighten foreign quotas. Their proposal is in exchange for an FA endorsement for work permits. This may not effect too many of the top clubs but it could have an impact on the rest of the premier league who may then vote for such quota rules.
As I mentioned earlier, I think this is something the FA will continue to push regardless of Brexit.
They are targeting winning the world cup in the next decade. They won’t achieve this goal with the current attitude towards homegrown players from most premier league clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
they won't achieve this PERIOD.
the reality is france won world cup with a large proportion of its squad playing outsdie france.
lloris
pavard
Umtiti
varane
hernandez
Matuidi
pogba
kante
greizmann
giroud
ONLY mbappe playing in france. the same excerise can be applied to the bench.
National teams with leagues who IMPORT players are not going so well in general. spain has done ok but the time has passed now, italy fell away, germany has too.
It seems to me the only way to progress is to have a bigger pool of players across europe playing and cherry pick what you need.
Right now only one england player plays abroad (no not Rooney)
Page 6 of 15
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11