football
Latest News:
This is the board where Arsenal fans can discuss all things Arsenal, and any other football issues that they feel are of interest to Gunners. Opposition fans are welcome, but remember this board is from an Arsenal point of view. Off Topic Discussion should take place on the Off Topic Forum. Off Topic discussion will be removed. Any topic that is football related, within reason, is not off topic.


The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
11 May, 2012 17:44
The Duty of Care. What an impressive term. Solemn. Serious. Sincere. A term that raises the level of any issue where and when it is invoked and drives home its importance that much further and more sharply.

Indeed certain users have raised that term especially recently as though to lend added gravitas to the role of the Arsenal Board in recent years and to justify the actions it took in that role.

Indeed recently Merlion while brethlessly defending the Board and its actions since 2005 made this following dramatic utterance

"No matter what you all siad about PHW & Board, they all have a duty of care to Arsenal FC to ensure they are on a financially sound footing without driving the club into adminstration like Leeds United spending beyond their means"

No I could simply mock the deccptive logic of spending more means ending up like Leeds as I usually do. But this is much too serious as the Duty of Care has been invoked now. This is far too important for mere sarcasm or sound-bites about fear tactics and the like now that we are discussing the Duty of care after all.

The funny thing is the duty of care does not merely apply in courts of law or on business charters. It can also be a conceptual tenet of everyday living that extends to those.
It is a defined this way at law.com as

a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use . If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent...


It is the concept out of which many laws regarding personal or corporate negligence in a variety of fields are established and even laws such as the Good Samaritan Laws about acting to stop or report criminal activity against others.

But as I say we all have a duty of care to ourselves and each other. For example if you take out a large mortgage on a nice home then choose to take another expensive loan on a hot new car when you can barely afford both obligations or worse even cannot you have failed in your duty of care to yourself by definition. You have placed yourself at greater financial and thus personal risk by doing this.

By the same token did not the Arsenal Board put Arsenal Football Club at greater financial and thus, in a manner, personal risk by borrowing an additional 130 million pounds to re-develop Highbury on top of the almost 400 million already borrowed to complete the construction of the Emirates. (Don't forget thet already had spent abort 150 million pound's of the Club's money to start that project.).

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
11 May, 2012 17:45
And thus how is putting a company be it a football club or an oil company at greater financial risk than is necessary showing a proper Duty of Care? I have to wonder. After all had things not gone as planned the Football Club under the self-sustaining business model would have borne the financial brunt of any cost incurred, particularly of the Highbury Re-development. I know it was all ring-fenced and proteced but was it really after all?

All revenue from the football stadium goes in to the football club and so in fact does all revenue from Highbury Square, while those all payments for the stadium loan come from the Football Club's revenue and turnover as does the set-aside matching funds(though that is only 20 million pounds total, you don't have to set aside a new 20 million every year) And while the Highbury Square project paid for itself ultimately, the cash flow shortfalls it created were paid for by the Football Club and no one else.

So basically the Board's Duty of Care was to increase the risk financially on the Football Club to pursue projects for which the Board collected fully 80% of the reward personally, or if you prefer a reward they recovered personally four to five times as large as the Club did. And again the Board never once placed itself at real financial risk other than Dan Fizsman's 10 million and David Dein's 300 thousand or so pounds.

Basically Arsenal Football Club assumed all of the risk and the Arsenal Board took nearly all of the reward and the Arsenal Board still won't let Arsenal Football Club use any of its small portion of that reward. So basically Arsenal F.C took all of the risk and the Board took all of the reward when you consider that. And that is showing their Duty of Care to them and their loyalists apparently.

But if that is somehow showing the proper Duty of Care to Arsenal Football Club I would hate to see if our Board ever failed in that regard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2012 17:51 by RadioFreeArsenal.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 01:31
Dude....I agree with the sentiment, I agree with the facts but the reason that everybody but Noah and his family died was because people generally don't listen to the prophet, they mock him and ultimately perish with the rats.

You see that Arsenal FC has been possessed by ARSENAL PLC and that the club is no longer a canvas for the strokes of genius, but the day's of art in the game and in western societies as a whole collapse's into a heap as we type.

Art has been replaced by advertisement and as a result we have a parody of art I'd go as far as to say a mockery. Everything meaningful has been stripped ready for mass production and consumption in the name of profit and the free market and as the share holders of the corporate machine rape the world in the name of profit so the products get progressively less shiny and functional until you get where we are now where corporations simply "make to break" so that you have to buy another, point in case my mums old vacuum cleaner lasted for 20 years since that broke in the early 90's she's had maybe 10 of them.

It's no different the vacuum cleaner or anything else including football clubs because as the share holders demand more and more from the revenues of the club the product must suffer and the product of any football club is the football itself, not coffee mugs, scarves, doily's or replica shirts and the product has been suffering ever since this board realised that the fans would keep coming based upon their love of the club regardless of how much they were charged or how little of that cash they invested in the 1st team and knew they were onto a winner.

That my brother is the very nature of Capitalism/corporatism, everything meaningful must die.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 02:31
Wow - that is some post I don't know whether to feel hope or off m'self.

Seriously regardless of views that is a some brilliant writing Billy.

I don't disagree if you read the other thread I opened today my concern ids that even if you are right and there is nothing we can say or do moving forward we should stop lynching other people just so we feel better about it. As I say there we are not seeing the present ruin and probably the future, but the glorious past from 1998-2005 because of this need to blame someone, amyone, even the wrong people.

But I will add this whole I keenly respect your views and your analysis I hope you will not give up. Its bad enough there are so few people who are willing to see what this is really about. Idf for no other reason than not to let them ruin all the good that has happened already because that might all or close to all we have left going forward - especially given your well-thought words, Billy.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Ballistix (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 08:16
Art is a parody of itself twice in the 1970,s the Tate bought a pile of used nappies and a pile of London bricks to exhibit. We are all slaves to capitalism new phones, consoles, computers etc. I turned 40 this year and was brought up in the computer age so have embraced it. I have seen the trials and tribulations of been an Arsenal supporter. I do not accept there is a decline 7 years without an important trophy is not as scary as Man city,s lack of achievements.

The spuds have continuously underperformed in the premiership years despite having ok'ish squads. For me the club has dithered too long with the youth policy the blend of youth and experience is the key.

Arsenal has to make money, I do not want a club bank rolled like the Mansour brothers who for them is a rich toy.

Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg are committed to halving their wealth in order to fund real social projects this is philanthropy in its richest form.

Man city, Chelsea are not charities but have had obscene amounts spent on them. Arsenal has managed a new ground and has tried to bring some touches to the Emirates for me the biggest mistake in the design was not incorporating the clock from the outset. The horrible word Arsenalisation does have pluses though. Wether we like it or not a commodity and in order to keep profits up the profiteering side of business needs to work in order to keep us in the running.

I do feel as a club we are run properly, we may all cite issues we have with the lack of silver in the club. We are solvent and healthy with a good generational fan base and a positive future.

Seven years with nothing in the cupboard does not concern me, Chelsea won the FA cup at the weekend and I know so called Chelsea fans who are not bothered they like Abramovich are only concerned about the 17th May how sad is that?

For me the fact that Arsenal may finish third this year and above our rivals is satisfying after seeing the "mind the gap" posters held aloft by the spuds for me finishing above them in one of our worst years and there best is beauty in itself and this final push will bring me a smile all summer.

Traditionalist always think its their traditions but the people who started those traditions were in the present once,and there would of people moaning about traditions then. We are custodians of the Arsenal faith we will die and others take the role on.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Bergmars (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 08:27
Feck me boys cheer up,we are doing ok here ya know.



DB10,the best.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 08:35
Billys on the money. In fact, what most people do not grasp, is that it would be illegal for dyson, british gas or indeed Arsenal football club to function any other way. The only LEGALLY protected duty of care is towards one's shareholders, whose share value must be maximised wherever possible. Its why, as Billy suggests, Western society will eventually fracture. Because the model leads inevitably to an extreme of rich and poor, once it outstrips the limitations imposed upon it by government. Because we are reliant on the mechansims of the stock market for a third of our national income, i think we can safely say it has already done that. I think weve got more to worry about, personally, than what Gervinho and Chamakh can do for the team.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 15:13
It's good to have you back celine
Quote:
I think weve got more to worry about, personally, than what Gervinho and Chamakh can do for the team.
and so do I my brother which is why I created a site offering for free what others are charging for so that the truth of the system can be realised by those who have not the cash to pay for the privilege.
I sent you the link in a PM a while ago celine and there are many documents now on the site explaining the fraud perpetrated against the true creditors of the world (the people) in detail, but on page 2 of the documents section is a document I created recently where the rules of the civil procedures are explained in a book called "The white book" written for officers of the court where they themselves give the game away in such a way as to highlight their audacity which borders on unbelievable.

Check it out CD.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 15:33
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM ROCKS!

You lots should not bite the hands that fed yoru grandpa, papa, you, your childrena dn grandchildren.

WIthout Keynesian Economics implemented by the then Fabian socialist Labour Govenrment of Lord Atlee, you lots will not enjoy the cradle to grave social welfarism todya.

By the wya, who generated the wealth that funds the healthcare of Billythe kid papa and mama so that they cna conceived billythekid healthy, free milk, free medialcare, free schooling and heavily subsidised public transportation/

CAPITALISM which generate wealth and taxes or social welfarism which consumes wealth and taxes?

You lots are asking for those that geeerate wealth to fund your social welfarims based on altruisma dn charity?

C'mon, look at Indai.
SO-called Socialist country....and yet entire Economy controlled by Cronysim Capitalism.

Look at COmunist CHina.
You sure it is SOCIALISM that generates that trillions of US$ current surplus.

Look at North Korea, Cuba, Middle East.....CAPITALISM or CRONYISM CAPITALISM?

Look at Germany?
SOCIALISM or CAPITALISM that pays the bill of its social welfarism?

Look at Australia.
Extremely generous social welfarism due to its commodities.
But people forgot to look at its debt and deficit as a percentage of tis GDP.
Australia reminded you of Manchester City..RUsski si exactly reflected at CHelski.

Arsenal?
CAPITALISM at its best like social democratic Scandanvian countries like Denmarka dn Sweden..heavily in debt, but saalries with no obscene divide betweent eh Richa dn teh Poor...and although heaivly in debt but still living within its means through prudent budgets and cuttign on its generous social erlfarism which it can't support no more.

Other premiership teams?
Exactly like UK when its North Sea Oil Bonanza starting to run out, mortgaging its future with massive deficits...and when teh chicken come home to roost?

ManLeeds? Tiny Totts?
Let's hope it is part of that P.I.I.G.S... grinning smiley

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 15:54
Quote:
Merlion
who generated the wealth that funds the healthcare of Billythe kid papa and mama

I did and I can prove it. Those that are invited to my site get to see it first hand and hear the facts straight from the horses mouth.

Merlion, if I put a gold bar on the floor and ask it to get up go to the edge of one cliff and build me a bridge to the another how long exactly do you think it would take for the gold bar to comply ?

What is it that the government exchange with the BANK OF ENGLAND when they receive a billion pounds of that banks fiat currency ?

What are the instruments exchanged underwritten by ?

What is the definition of an "International security" according to the companies which trade them ?

Do you really think that a concept, an idea, a fiction generates wealth ?

If so how is the word "energy" defined in science according to the laws of conservation ?

because when you say this
Quote:
You lots are asking for those that geeerate wealth to fund your social welfarims based on altruisma dn charity?
I realise how little you know !

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 16:02
[mises.org]

To write about bleeding-heart libertarianism is no easy task. Self-professed bleeding-heart libertarians, who include well-known political philosophers, now run their own website, and the movement has aroused among libertarians considerable interest. But the bleeding hearts do not profess a unified philosophical point of view. If someone is a Rothbardian, e.g., or an Objectivist, you at once know what views you need to address; not so for a bleeding heart.

If the movement professes no fixed body of doctrine, though, many bleeding hearts seek to combine support for the free market, albeit often in an attenuated form, with a favorable view of social justice, and, in particular, of John Rawls's theory of justice.[1] Though Rawls was of course far from a supporter of the free market, a number of the bleeding hearts believe that his views can, suitably modified, provide a powerful defense of classical liberalism.

John Tomasi does not in Free Market Fairness call himself a bleeding-heart libertarian, but his excellent book offers the best and most comprehensive defense yet to appear of the position just described. Tomasi is a distinguished and imaginative political philosopher who teaches at Brown University, and every reader of his book will learn a great deal from it.

Tomasi describes in an engaging way what led him to what appears at first sight a mixture of incompatible commitments. On the one hand, he found classical liberalism appealing; on the other hand, he was attracted to a conception of justice usually taken to be inimical to that position.

Two classical-liberal ideas especially attracted him. The free market enables people to mold their own lives; no longer need they passively react to the wishes of others.


Growing prosperity seems to give an ever-wider range of people a sense of power and independence. It encourages a special form of self-esteem that comes when people recognize themselves as central causes of the particular lives they are living — rather than being in any way the ward of others, no matter how well meaning , other-regarding or wise those others might be. (p. 61)

Many have criticized the free market because, in Marx's phrase, it is an "anarchy of production": no central body coordinates the vast array of market prices. But this is of course not a failing but a virtue. Hayek has through his notion of "spontaneous order" done a great deal to illuminate why this is so, and Tomasi is impressed:


I am also drawn to the libertarian idea of "spontaneous order." … Friedrich Hayek argues that a free society is best thought of as a spontaneous order in which people should be allowed to pursue their own goals on the basis of information available only to themselves. Along with the moral ideal of private economic liberty, I find the libertarian emphasis on spontaneous order deeply attractive. (p. xii)

Among his fellow political philosophers, support for the free market is decidedly a minority view. Classical liberalism has been overthrown by what Tomasi, following Samuel Freeman, calls "high liberalism":


The distinctive political commitment of high liberals is to a substantive conception of equality. Perhaps as a result, high liberals are skeptical of the moral importance of private economic liberty. Unlike the classical liberals and libertarians, the high liberal ideal of equality leads them to affirm a conception of social or distributive justice. (p. 54)

Clearly, you cannot at the same time consistently be both a classical liberal and a high liberal. But Tomasi makes a surprising claim. The most important theorist of high liberalism is John Rawls, but Tomasi argues that Rawls's conception of justice as fairness, which he accepts, can be adapted to the defense of "market democracy," Tomasi's version of classical liberalism.

Rawls's theory is not the only left-liberal account of social justice on offer, and Tomasi does not intend to "marry market democracy to the Rawlsian program" (p. 105). But "I [Tomasi] choose justice as fairness simply because, once it has been adjusted and corrected according to market democratic principles, it is the conception of liberal justice I find most compelling" (p. 175).

In order to understand Tomasi's claim and to judge its success, it is important to grasp what market democracy means. It is by no means the same as the libertarianism of Rothbard and Nozick.


Within the framework of market democracy, economic liberties can properly be regulated and limited to advance compelling interests of the liberal state.… Unlike strict libertarians, market democrats can join high liberals as well as classical liberal thinkers such as Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Richard Epstein, who say that the liberals state should be given the power to provide a social minimum funded by a system of taxation. (pp. 91–2).

Tomasi also favors government support of education, e.g., through a voucher scheme. (A complication, which will not be pursued here, is that Tomasi distinguishes two versions of market democracy, democratic laissez-faire and democratic limited government; the second allows somewhat more direct government intervention than the first.)

But even if Tomasi is not a strict libertarian, does not his position differ entirely from that of Rawls, who expressly repudiates as inadequate the "system of natural liberty"? How then can Tomasi arrive at a Rawlsian defense of market democracy?

Tomasi's answer is not the obvious one that will first occur to most readers. Rawls's difference principle allows inequalities that make the worst-off class in society better off than they would otherwise be. Suppose that a great deal of inequality turns out to be to the advantage of the worst off because, e.g., economic incentives strongly motivate people. Would we not have a Rawlsian justification of inequality?

We very well might; but this is not the line that Tomasi takes. The point just considered depends on an empirical hypothesis about how people in the actual world are motivated. Tomasi prefers to operate at a higher level of abstraction. He is concerned, like Rawls himself, with "ideal theory." This consists of two tasks of identification. The first of these


involves identifying a set of principles of justice that expresses our commitment to treat citizens as free and equal self-governing agents. The second identificatory task concerns institutions … we seek to identify institutional regime types that "realize" the principles of justice. (p. 206)

What Tomasi has in mind, then, is this. Rawls's own social-democratic views are simply interpretations of his theory of justice. If we accept Rawls's principles of justice, we are not bound by Rawls's own views about how these principles are to be implemented, and the door to a market-democratic interpretation of Rawls lies open. To think otherwise, Tomasi holds, is to fall victim to what he calls an "ipse dixit" fallacy. "At the extreme, the exegetical approach treats justice as fairness as a plot in the archaeology of ideas rather than as a living, growing research paradigm" (p. 179).

For each of Rawls's principles of justice, then, Tomasi offers an interpretation congenial to market democracy. Rawls's first principle specifies a set of liberties that enjoys lexical priority to the distributive requirements of the second principle.[2] Rawls does not include rights to acquire and hold productive property among the set, but Tomasi does. The ability to engage in business often proves an excellent way to develop one's moral powers. Why, then, exclude it from the list of protected liberties? Tomasi intends this point to apply to what Rawls terms the "special conception of justice," where "social conditions are favorable to the attainment of social justice" (p. 181). He contends that with "prosperity, the existence of thick private economic liberty is for many citizens an essential condition of responsible self-authorship" (p. 183).

Tomasi offers his own understanding of other Rawlsian principles. For fair equality of opportunity, Tomasi stresses the need for each person to have a wide variety of choices, as opposed to efforts to counter the effects of status. For the difference principle, he emphasizes the need to increase through economic growth the wealth of the worst-off class. Not for him are efforts directly to reduce inequalities, e.g., through progressive taxation.

Those of libertarian inclination will find Tomasi's political program far more acceptable that Rawls's own program, but I do not think that Tomasi succeeds in making a Rawlsian case for market democracy. The problem as I see it is that he does not take adequate account of the originality of Rawls's approach to political philosophy.

The situation that drives Rawls to his theory is that of people in a large society like the United States who are divided by conflicting conceptions of the good. Some of these conceptions may be better than others, and one may in fact be the correct one: Rawls does not commit himself on this question. But none of these conceptions can be shown to be true in the strong sense that it would be unreasonable for anyone to reject it. This state of affairs Rawls terms "the fact of reasonable pluralism."

Given reasonable pluralism, it would be wrong for the holders of one conception to impose their views on others; respect for others requires that we defend our political views with reasons others could acknowledge. Our aim, Rawls holds, should not be a mere modus vivendi with those who profess other conceptions of the good. Rather, we should seek a stable society in which people decide disputed questions by democratic discussion.

He intends the principles of justice to give the conditions under which such democratic decisions can take place. Herein lies Rawls's originality. By inquiry into the conditions of a stable regime, given the fact of reasonable pluralism, one can avoid appeals to controversial moral intuitions or problematic moral theories like utilitarianism. His approach to justification is "political, not metaphysical."

Why did I embark on this elementary account of Rawls's theory? The reason is to bring out that to adopt a Rawlsian account of justice, one must accept democratic participation in a strong sense. For Rawls, the people in a society are bound to one another by special ties and decide political questions together. The echoes of Rousseau here are not accidental.[3]

Tomasi, it is clear, is not committed to this sort of democracy. People on his account need not value at all the process of deciding questions together with other citizens (though of course they are not precluded from doing this) He seems to me entirely right that productive business activity has great value; but this claim, right or not, derives from a particular conception of the good, not from asking for the presuppositions of democratic decision making under the condition of reasonable pluralism. In like fashion, the egalitarian implications Rawls finds in his principle of fair equality of opportunity and in the difference principle are not simply interpretations of his own that reflect distaste for wealth. Rather, once more they are plausibly taken as necessary conditions for the type of democratic participation Rawls favors.

Why does any of this matter? Suppose Tomasi responds that he rejects the democratic solidarity that Rawls wishes to promote. If he does this, though, then his defense of his interpretations of political liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle depend on his own conception of the good. Like most political philosophers, he is reduced to his own moral intuitions or moral theory. He has abandoned the distinctive Rawlsian method of political justification.

I do not at all contend that he is wrong to do so: I am not a Rawlsian.[4] But Tomasi ought to be clear that, though he has adopted some Rawlsian themes, he has proceeded in an un-Rawlsian way. Many of the words of Rawls are present in Tomasi's book, but not the music.

Taken apart from the misleading Rawlsian framework, Tomasi's book contains many good arguments in defense of classical liberalism. But the intuitions that underlie these arguments must be weighed against other intuitions and arguments, in particular those that support the more stringent libertarianism from which Tomasi recoils.

Tomasi has little use for strict libertarians. They consider property rights "absolute"; by this he appears to mean that they would not allow the interventions by government such as the social-safety net and provision of vouchers that he thinks acceptable. He remarks that libertarians, like high liberals,


single out the economic liberties for special treatment. But instead of lowering the status of the economic liberties, libertarians elevate them above all others. Economic liberties become the weightiest of all rights. Indeed, libertarians such as Jan Narveson assert that liberty is property. (p. 48, emphasis in original)

But if, as Narveson and Rothbard think, all rights can be analyzed as property rights, how does it follow that property rights are more important than other rights? To the contrary, the conclusion negates the premise. If there are no rights besides property rights, property rights cannot be more important than property rights. If Tomasi means that libertarians believe that property rights in the ordinary-language sense exceed in importance other rights such as civil liberties, this by no means follows from the libertarian view of property. In fact, it is directly contrary to Rothbard's own view that self-ownership is the primary right.

________________________________________________

True, I know very little of yoru world.

But this is my world, the world I live in.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 16:13
[bastiat.mises.org]


All Aboard For Singapore

By Douglas French

Friday, May 11th, 2012


In a piece for Bloomberg, reporter Sanat Vallikappen begins, “Go away, American millionaires.” Valliikappen then goes on to explain that wealth management firms the world over are declining to open offshore accounts for Americans.

“I don’t open U.S. accounts, period,” said Su Shan Tan, head of private banking at Singapore-based DBS, Southeast Asia’s largest lender, who described regulatory attitudes toward U.S. clients as “Draconian.”

It hadn’t been easy for Americans doing financial business overseas, but since the 2010 passage of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as Fatca, which seeks to prevent tax evasion by Americans with offshore accounts, opening a foreign bank account has become mission impossible.

Valliikappen writes,

The 2010 law, to be phased in starting Jan. 1, 2013, requires financial institutions based outside the U.S. to obtain and report information about income and interest payments accrued to the accounts of American clients. It means additional compliance costs for banks and fewer investment options and advisers for all U.S. citizens living abroad, which could affect their ability to generate returns.

The Institute of International Bankers and the European Banking Federation said in an April 30 letter to the IRS, that the 400 pages of rules and regulations issued by the American tax authority create Unnecessary burdens and costs.”

Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal says the government needs to crack down on offshore tax dodgers. Mr. Neal wants tax money and doesn’t care much about privacy and all that.

“People should know, and the IRS should know, what money is being held offshore and for what purpose,” Neal said. “I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about that.”

One young gentleman that believed Rep. Neal and the other thieves on Capitol Hill to be a bit too greedy and unreasonable is Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. Before Facebook does its public offering, and the price of Facebook stock is quoted daily, making Saverin’s wealth undistributable, he decided to renounce his American citizenship and head for Singapore.

Bloomberg reports,

Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dorm and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world’s largest social network holds its IPO.

Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as “certain foreign- sourced income,” according to a government website on tax policies there.

Saverin has to pay the U.S. government an exit tax but doing it before the IPO was wise. Renouncing your citizenship well in advance of an IPO is “a very smart idea,” from a tax standpoint, said Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan’s law school. “Once it’s public you can’t fool around with the value.”

There are a few Mises Institute supporters who have paid the American exit tax and now live in Singapore. None I’ve spoken with regret it.

“It’s a loss for the U.S. to have many well-educated people who actually have a great deal of affection for America make that choice,” said Richard Weisman, an attorney at Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong. “The tax cost, complexity and the traps for the unwary are among the considerations.”

While Mr. Neal chases away taxpayers, the only ones left will be tax eaters.

_____________________________________________________

You want to tax yoru "Super Rich" with 50% HMRC rate of Hollande wanted to tax 'em 75%?

Well, you are going to have plenty of Severin living in Singapore, plenty of Jason button and Lewis Hamilton living in Monaco and plenty of Schumacher living in Switzerland.

Look at Hong Kong, SHanghai, Tokyo, Souel, Beijing, Singapore, Taiwan, etc?
What built 'em up to what they are today.
CAPITALISM or SOCIAL WELFARISM.

Come Jan 1, 2013, how many US tax exiles wil be liivng aboard....like tens of thosuands Britons working and living decades in tax-free Middle Eastern countries, some of them frm father to son?

That is the world I lvie in Billythekid.
Nobody owes moi a living, neither do I owe a duty of care to their welfare.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 18:07
My, my! Somebody's been a busy Boy Merl lol!

I have always found the right-wing libertarian vision fascinating even as it can be so disgusting. The simple truth is the libeterian ideal would be a positive odeal - the problem being that moral and social relativism - personal interests personal biases, the inevitable capitalism upon those things, the inevitable imposition upon others of them - fatally undermine that ideal.Liberterians want their freedom but not necessarily anyone else's in general. Even Ron Paul gives that away every so often.

Let's start here - every economy is a capitalist economy by definition unless there is no exchange of money for services period and more improtantly no imbalnaced distribution of services or goods on any basis.

The problem Merl is I will bet you happily take advantage of plenty of government services and programs that are avialble to you, which is fine because they are made available to you. But it also confirms that like most libertarians your views are fatally flawed by that same relativism.

Indeed the libertarian ideal would be a state in manner of anarchy and I will grant you credit for acknowledging that much. The problem is right-wing anarchy will be no more successful than left-wing anarchy ultimately because anarchy will fail because even then at some point a dominant group will emerge that will end the anarchy and then impose their relativism.

All you have to do is look at the history of religion and religious leaders and their pecadilloes from the beginning of history to see there is no one who is not a relativist no matter how strongly they protest otherwise.

So the real issue is to bring it back to football what would happen if there were no referees or rules even? That is government or the state's role. Better still what if there were individuals who declared every challange you made foul than said the same or worse challenges by him were perfectly fair? Again this is what the state and government exist for.

To balance the relativism and its impact so that every citizen lives best possible quality of life whatever their station, status or economic wealth. To not let the distribution of goods and services required to survive and even prosper by all citizens to be denied to any citizens.

What has happened in the last three decades is this concept has been undermined from within by right-wingers who are happy not simply to impose their relativism on the state and the government but to let others outside the government impose theirs on the society as a whole.

You can cite all the libertarian philosophers or economists you like - Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Tomasi - you know ultimately that is correct. A purely capitalistic or libertarian society will still be a human society and thus a relativist society just favoring one group or another and no different in that regard from a purely socialist or communist society each of which of course aee as flawed as a libertarian society in that thye also are realtivist societies just favoring differing groups, though in every case they favor power elites over their society as a whole.

The problem we face is where there was a balance in place following the Great Depression and World War Two which directly resulted from that economic nightmare that allowed for all people to have a good and improving standard of living, the society inevitably grew more distant from those traumatic memories as did those in government and those at the top of society returned toward the sort of greed and self-interest and economic imbalance that brought about that depression and the nightmarish war that followed onto it.

And forgetting that lesson and the scars we incurred for generations is not just wrong and bad for society but deadly dangerous as well. But that is exactly what this new generation of proto-Randists like Paul Ryan have done. He and the generation of conservative Republicans before him who do not recall those terrible years or the horrors we all endured and shared to a greater extent then, and they are happy to return to a more imblanced society and destabilized society because they unintended consequences of that are something they have never experienced.

You may feel there is no need for such increased balance as you indicate in finishing your comments but I suspect in fact that would not appluy now and certainly will not apply when you are older and need to depend either on the consideration of your family if your family can afford that consideration or the support of the state if that support is still there if indeed in we continue in the direction you embrace.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 18:15
If you truly believe in your libertarian capitalist ideals Merl then do you believe in the existence of an army either volunteer or conscription to defend the wealth of peoples obtained at the expense of those defending it? Why should people denied the same opportunity to compete to succeed in a free society because they are not born at "the top" end of society defend those given unfair competitive benefits and advantages that are not based on merit but privelege that they are denied?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 18:20
Merlion vs Radio Free.

Oh my days.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 18:36
Do you formulate your own opinions or do you abdicate that to others all of the time ?
I love the caveat at the end where you think you get to tell me what I want or believe even though your own opinion was copy pasted and is someone else's idea, the irony.

You answered none of the questions I posed because Google couldn't answer or wouldn't, but I know the answers to all of those questions and therefore can formulate an opinion and based upon the facts draw a conclusion whereas you regurgitate what you are fed and think what you are told.

Funny because the first question should have been an easy one even for a child and the answer to it is, ad infinitum.
The clue to the third was in the fourth and the sixth answered the fifth.

I'm afraid that the system which you seem to love so much for all of it's inadequacies and crimes is falling. If you knew anything you would know the gravity of the concept of trusts within the judicial and political systems, how they are created whether expressly or by implication and what that means.

The entire system is based upon trusts, your name is a trust which trustees and beneficiaries either manage or benefit from. Your name is a thing a company incorporated by a municipal corporation which operates on the international markets as a for profit organisation (like BURGER KING), you were given an instrument to be the bearer of proving that the company exists and the legal title to the trust is held by the corporation which incorporated the now legal entity or "person" in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978 "a body corporate".

Because that municipal corporation holds legal title to the entities which it creates i.e MR MERLION, the created entity is an extension of the municipal corporation and is owned by it in the same way that having the legal title deed to property constitutes you as either the holder in due course and therefore a proprietor whether directly or as implied by a beneficial interest.
The state see's your name as a "thing" and by dint of this fact you when you consent to or acquiesce to be the name you agree that you have no rights as a man as you are now a body corporate and as an agent of the corporation which owns the entity you have to follow it's rules and adhere to it's faux judgments because you agree that it owns you if you agree that you are your name.

The trust is broken, the trustees are holding over on the estates which are reserved for the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries are returning or in my case, have returned. The state or society is a byproduct of man, a fiction created in the mind alone, you can't point to a society like you can point to a tree or the Sun or to me or you you can only allude to it as it is only an illusion I am not.
Energy is defined by science as "the ability to do work," oil is the energy of the dead and the buildings you sleep in, the pipes that run to your house to provide that water and gas, the wires and circuits, the schools, the hospitals were all bar none built under national initiatives by the people for the people and were sold off by the government in mergers between corporate and government power to the highest bidders which is the definition of fascism as Mussolini quite clearly stated "fascism should rightly be called corporatism and true fascism is the merger between corporate and government power" and as Mussolini was the man who invented and first coined the term, his definition is definitive.

If you had blue eyes and blonde hair Hitler would have loved you, if not he would have agreed and killed you anyway.


I have fed you enough on the matter for now, but know that I can prove everything which I have written by way of my own research.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2012 18:44 by Billythekid.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 18:36
No this is not some grand battle because as I say his philosophy if ideally achievable is to some extent not entirely unacceptable in my eyes but is fatally flawed because I like he am a relativist as are you and every one of us called human beings and that makes a true libertarian society simply impossible to enact or maintain.

By the way there is no one disputing that the Board's Duty of care is to the Shareholders or that the shareholders on not entitled to return on investment.

The problem is too many people want to pretend that

A - that did not figure in any of the decisions that brought about our decline on the pitch

and

B - That it is acceptable to blame the players alone or the manager alone and give the Board a free pass for the consequences of their greed-driven decisions.

If people just said hey the Board got greedy and their greed is why we are here most of this debate would just end right there perhaps all of it even. It would also allow us not to turn on the players or the manager so viruently which means we are poisoning things as much as the Board or if you choose to persist in believing this manager has.

The Board could have made plenty of money and still given the manager the kind of support that allowed us to win seven trophies from 1998-2005. That wasn't good enough for them apparently. Not the seven trophies, but making a bit less money for themselves.

The same choice applies now. We all can benefit on and off the pitch or just the investors can benefit financially going forward. Which would you prefer?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2012 18:47 by RadioFreeArsenal.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
eduardo (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 21:44
the unholy trinity radio/merl/billy(Sm105) - just glad radio posted first as it saved me reading any of it(Sm120)



*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 21:57
Another great post Billy though the last bit about Hitler might have gone bit far though I can see how Merl's unrestrained right-wing passion could lead to that conclusion. The Mussolini quote before it however was absolutely brilliant and a quote that every one concerned about the direction of human society today should keep in mind.

As for Eddy sorry we woke you up from your dreams of Arsenal being the same exact sort of club run by the same exact sort oif people as Samuel Hill-Wood and Sir Henry Norris and Sir Bracewell-Smith you have been dreaming since 2005. Dreams always work better than reality after all.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 22:55
Let's get back on-point a bit.

Merl if you believe the Board has only honored its Duty of Care to th Club and specifically the shareholders than why not just say that is why we are in the situation we are in on the pitch given the overwhelming of factual evidence indicating that is the case and the overwhelming lack of such evidence to indicate any other scenario.

Why try to blame someone else for the results or consequences of the Board doing precisely what you believe they were supposed to do?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:06
and I remember this one time, at band camp...

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:18
I'd finish that Celine but you know what it wouldn't sound right since I don't have the right equipment...

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:23
But seriously Celien you make a reasoned case about the Board's Duty of care though that still doesn't account foir the decision to re-develop Highbury given the added risk it placed on the Club, but I have another question.

If you are correct then why not just say the Board acted in its own interest(since they held 90% of the shares or so at the time they made most of these decisions) and that is why the team has declined instead of trying to pretend the manager has suddenly lost the plot or changed his philosophies on and off the pitch? Perhaps I am unfairly potraying you here and if so I apologize in advance but I believe you are happy to put the bulk or even entirety of blame on the manager, no? Why is that right or fair if you kmow the Board acted out of self-interest to set all this in motion?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:27
you know what mate, I'm p*ssed as a broomstick. So I dont actually know.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Rockstaar (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:34
Quote:
the unholy trinity radio/merl/billy - just glad radio posted first as it saved me reading any of it

thumbs down



http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5066/verminator2.jpg
[arsenalsigs.blogspot.com]

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:41
What a @#$%& . That sig just confirms the damage the Board's policies have done no matter how happy you are to willfully ignore them choose to lie in their defence and deliberately blame others for the consequnces of their actions. Mr. Romney.

Let me guess its not your fault that haven't s done what you say they have. Sounds about right Mittster



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2012 23:42 by RadioFreeArsenal.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:43
Quote:
celine dion
you know what mate, I'm p*ssed as a broomstick. So I dont actually know.

No worries - just answer the question when you sober up.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
12 May, 2012 23:45
will. never. happen.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 01:08
Quote:
celine dion
will. never. happen.

Sobering up or answering the question?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 02:06
Quote:
Billythekid
Do you formulate your own opinions or do you abdicate that to others all of the time ?
I love the caveat at the end where you think you get to tell me what I want or believe even though your own opinion was copy pasted and is someone else's idea, the irony.

You answered none of the questions I posed because Google couldn't answer or wouldn't, but I know the answers to all of those questions and therefore can formulate an opinion and based upon the facts draw a conclusion whereas you regurgitate what you are fed and think what you are told.

Funny because the first question should have been an easy one even for a child and the answer to it is, ad infinitum.
The clue to the third was in the fourth and the sixth answered the fifth.

I'm afraid that the system which you seem to love so much for all of it's inadequacies and crimes is falling. If you knew anything you would know the gravity of the concept of trusts within the judicial and political systems, how they are created whether expressly or by implication and what that means.

The entire system is based upon trusts, your name is a trust which trustees and beneficiaries either manage or benefit from. Your name is a thing a company incorporated by a municipal corporation which operates on the international markets as a for profit organisation (like BURGER KING), you were given an instrument to be the bearer of proving that the company exists and the legal title to the trust is held by the corporation which incorporated the now legal entity or "person" in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978 "a body corporate".

Because that municipal corporation holds legal title to the entities which it creates i.e MR MERLION, the created entity is an extension of the municipal corporation and is owned by it in the same way that having the legal title deed to property constitutes you as either the holder in due course and therefore a proprietor whether directly or as implied by a beneficial interest.
The state see's your name as a "thing" and by dint of this fact you when you consent to or acquiesce to be the name you agree that you have no rights as a man as you are now a body corporate and as an agent of the corporation which owns the entity you have to follow it's rules and adhere to it's faux judgments because you agree that it owns you if you agree that you are your name.

The trust is broken, the trustees are holding over on the estates which are reserved for the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries are returning or in my case, have returned. The state or society is a byproduct of man, a fiction created in the mind alone, you can't point to a society like you can point to a tree or the Sun or to me or you you can only allude to it as it is only an illusion I am not.
Energy is defined by science as "the ability to do work," oil is the energy of the dead and the buildings you sleep in, the pipes that run to your house to provide that water and gas, the wires and circuits, the schools, the hospitals were all bar none built under national initiatives by the people for the people and were sold off by the government in mergers between corporate and government power to the highest bidders which is the definition of fascism as Mussolini quite clearly stated "fascism should rightly be called corporatism and true fascism is the merger between corporate and government power" and as Mussolini was the man who invented and first coined the term, his definition is definitive.

If you had blue eyes and blonde hair Hitler would have loved you, if not he would have agreed and killed you anyway.


I have fed you enough on the matter for now, but know that I can prove everything which I have written by way of my own research.

You can't.

The sudden rise fo China from 1978 to 2012 disprove your theory as the CHinese Government is one big CRONYISM CAPITALISM organisation that uses brutal force to generate untold wealth for its citizenry.

From ZERO MIddle-Class in 1978, to a thriving and increasingly noveaux riche middle class of 400-milion along the coastal cities.

You win some, you lose some.
400-million noveaux riche
900-milion dirt-poor peasantry inland.

WHichever way you look at it, CAPITALISM works with 400-million noveaux riche that keep on growing and continue to generate wealth for CHina - to the tune of at least US$2-trillion soverign funds...

WHichever "-ism" you deifne CHina, it is all those.
But hey, what Deng Xiao Ping siad:
"I couldn't care less whetehr the cat is black or white as long as it catches the rat."

Billy, you can spout all the theories you want, demonstrate the proof you want, but starign in your case is China to disprove all your theories.

Plus Germany, Russia, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and next on the list, that odeorous regime, Myanmar...with all EU beuracrats making a bee-line to the Minsiter's Office to cut billion-dollars deals and "economic aids to help to develop Myanmar" to rape its virgin jungles, to digup its virgin and unexplored interior and to destroy its pristine coasts, untouched since 1949.......why, all in the name of generating wealth for its citizenry sin't it.

Taht is no noveau riche enclave in MYanmar right now...watch this space in say..20 years....

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 02:50
So you endorse crony capitalism even when brutally enforced by the government eh Merl. That works using brutality to choose winners and losers in your society. because that is exactly what you just endorsed.

This is a wind-up innit?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 03:47
The difference between your view and mine is that where I want a capitalist system that is governed and thus humanzied so more people can benefit and have a fair opportunity to benefit from it, you prefer a system where there is no state involvement is less humanized and humane and thus only an already very wealthy few can benefit.

______________________________________________________

Curious enough, you undercut your own rants against the Board for not spending?

Are you mobilising "GOVERNED BY COERCION" in encouraging Arsenal fans to boycott Emirates, merchandise sales, TV rightsa nd sponsorships to FORCE Kroenke and Co to spend, spend and spend on players and to provide Wenger with a 100-mil transfer budget to buy 30+ mil players?

Eventually, who are the suckers that will pay for this 100-mil Player Transfer Funds?
And how were all those Arsenal Holdings' profits were generated - thru' the largesse of Sugar Daddy Kroenke - ABramovich or Abu Dhabi?

Abramovich, spending 750-mil and still counting, on his beloved CHelsea Rent-Boys.
Is there any "state interference", coercive force applied to him to spend and how does all thsoe spendings benefitted ABramovich?
By spending 750-mil, yes it did benefited a few wealthy players, but overall, it benefited 55,000+ Chelski fans the most...more than 2 or 3 dozens players and their agents.

And that is ANARCHO-CAPITALISM where individuals are allowed to follow their own pursuits wihtout coercive forces neither do they in their prusuit of wealth applies any coercive force onto others...just that everybody has an equal chance to fettle away 750-mil to generate wealth or in their very own pursuit of happiness without an iota of State Interference nor coercive forces applied by State to force Abrmaovich to spend 750-mil on his beloved CHelsea Rent-Boys.

Look at ABu Dhabi then when you said a Capitalist system with a humane touch...and ABu DHabi is that by spending 1-billion and more in a humane way to benefit Eastlands and CITEH fans...55,000 and counting.

By spending 1-billion and more...with future plan to spend another 1-billion to redevelop Eastlands into an entertainment complex like in DUbai. How does this "humane government" spendings over at Eastlands are going to benefit the "poor" ver at ABu DHabi where labour camps at Sharjah and Dubai co-exist with palatial mansions of the Obscenely RIch Emiratis?

SUrely, Abu Dhabi is a I want a capitalist system that is governed and thus humanzied so more people can benefit and have a fair opportunity to benefit from it which benefited Mancurians greatly isn't it..by spending at least US$3-billion to US$5-billion since they bought over Manchester City to the enxt 5 years to redevelop Eastlands?

Arsenal Holdings?
By your reckoning, you want Kroenke to "have an humane capitalist system so that Arsenal fans can benefited from it"?
How?
By forcing 'em to spend 100-mil this summer?
And who is goingt o pay for thsi bill?
Benevolent sponsors or Arsenal fans by paying through their noses for more merchandises whose price jakce dup by another 20% ..adn wiht a captive customer, ticket prices jacked up again by another 10% per annum?

SOmebody got to pay the bill for your "humane system".
WHo else but hapless consumers like Henry Ford gave you CONSUMER a choice:
"You can choose any color you like as long as it is black".

Think this through.
Chelsea fans owned Stamford Bridge.
DO you think this will stop Abrmaovich from moving Chelski FC lock, stock and barrel into Battersea Power Station..or at the very worse, bought over London Olympic Stadium?

ABrmaovich is going to lose another 1-billion on this new stadium development.....isn't it ANARCHO-CAPITALISM that Abrmaovich is doing on his own free will to benefit CHelski fans in teh long run, but with short-term pain?
And all these withotu coercive force by anybody, and neither is coercvie applied by ABramovich to force the issue...willing to pay the price extorted by Government via "land sales"?

You tlak of "capitlaism with a humand touch to benefit majority of the people".

Isn't HRMC a "capitlaist system with a humane touch to benefit the majority for the people"..with you working your socks off with HMRC robbed you off 50% of your earnings to "benefit most of the non-working people" and also as protection money to make sure that you earned paid for your pensions when you are "non-productive and consumign resources generated by the productive when youa re old and useless"?

You called that a "humane capitalist system that benefited the most people" when your very owned Governemnt is robbing and cheating you blind via HMRC?

You want Arsenal Baord and Wenegr to spend?
But it will only benefit a few players and their agents...but at the expense of hittign 60,000+ Arsenal fans in their pocket with Kroenke jakcing up ticket prices everys eason..and more expensive F&B at Emirates.

How can you be espousing "capitlaist system with a humane face to benefit the most people" whereas you are speaking with a forked tongue by espousing coercive forces to eb applied to Arsenal Baord and Kroenke by advocating boycotting EMirates to force Kroenke to spend.....via collectiosn for Arsenal fans' pockets?

Benefitting two or three 30+ mil marquee players only and their agents, all paid by 60,000+ Arsenal fans at EMirates..and 2-mil+ Arsenal fans worldwide paying for more expensive merchandises..all to pay the transfer fees and salareis of these 2 to 3 marquee players?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 05:08
What a warped interpretation of reality

First of all I am not mobilizing government or governed by anything. My goal is that we work to influence the Board to atke a more reasoned approach that benefits both. the supporters in the stands and the investors in the Board Room.

As for more extreme measures you refer to they will haopen with or without an organized effort inevitably because supporters will lose patience and faith on their own anyway and vote with their feet them is thousands of solo boycotts that will still have a smililar negative effect as any mass organized action of that sort. If anything our goal or even my goal is to prevent things reaching that point.

As I say the goal is to positively influence positive changes that benefit all parties associated with Arsenal Football Club

That you consider asking and encouaging corporations to treat their loyal customers more considerately and fairly rather than abuse that loyalty for no other motive than personal or coprorate greed as some sort of coercive oppression says more about you as a human being than anything else. It is sad that someone who apprently has given so much though to these things is incapable of anymore than reducing this to some sort of perverse cartoon, only in your version Peter Hill-Wood is Dudley Do-Right and any supporter who questions let alone opposes what he does or why is Snidley Whiplash.

And you talk about someone undercutting their own arguments in your desperation to prove the virtues of your views you point exactly point - that a club owners or owners can act less selfishly and more considerately of the supporters and still be successful exercising the free will of the free market and just exercising it less greedily toward and contemptuously of their loyal supporters.
And before you again twist reality I have said we don't have to spend like Man City or Chelsea, simply more like Arsenal did from 1998-2005. Our spending annually has declined from 2006 on by 10-11 million punds per year which is the cost of one Tom Vermaelen or Alex-Oxlade Chamberlain, and ahead of what we paid for Laurent Koscielny by a fair margin so that is enough money to have acquired some significant upgrades each year we did not acquire.

So if you even just did that spending every other year we might have the 2 or 3 players some people believe are all that's now needed already. Or even if you believe its closer to 5 or 6 players now as I do we'd only need the 2 or 3 some are talkign about had we spent another 10-11 million every other year.

So had we spent an additional 30-33 million from 2005-2011 we would have had significantly improved teams and increased likelihood of greater success and winning silverware and be less likely to to have to sweat out CL qualification as we have five of the last seven years and the Board still would have made a healthy amount of money and Arsenal FC and PLC would remain stable and successful.

Please inform me of what is so unacceptable about that scenario. Is it that it's just mean and cruel and unfair to the Board to ask and expect them to make a little less money for themselves? Is that really it?

Oh the poor little rich men how awful of anyone to think they can't be as rich as they want no matter how they do it or who they hurt doing it just to be even richer. Whatever was I thinking being so cruel and unfair and bullying to them. You're right I am just a terrible person denying them the right to be as greedy as they want to be. That's just so mean.

Can I buy some acid Mr Merlion?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 05:33
And the warpedness continues believe it or not.

You refer to the fact that the supporters will pay for whatever we invest this summer. Well of course we will, because there has never been a time certainly not in the last thirty years when we haven't paid. Under the self-sustaning business model we pay for virtually everything the club does regarding football. and if things had not worked out with Highbury Square we would have paid for that too, just as our money pays off the annual installments on the Highbury Square financing and paid the initial 150 million the Club spent on the new stadium.

The idea that supporters are willing to pay outrageous prices so the Board can make enormous personal profits but would not be willing to pay similar prices for investment in the team they love to seek greater success is just intellectually dishonest.

But even worse is the idea that it is fair for the Board to use the supporters money against their interests simply to further their personal interest and in a way that causes pain to the supporters is just plain morally bankrupt and sadly says more about what kind of person you are than anything else.

Seriously why are you willing to pay overcharged prices so wealthyn people can make more money but feel uncomfortable doing that so we the supporters can see us achieve more and share in that joy? Are you just an Ayn Rander who hates anyone who isn't you? Jesus one of those is enough...

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 07:43
Then, why are there 60,000+ lemmings at Emirates every season, year-in and year-out, enriching Kroenke and Usmanov in the process?

Isn't premiership a cartel whereas even the likes of Celtic and Ranger are refused entry?

WHy cna't the TOp-4 in Manchester Untied, Arsenal, Liverpool and CHelski (add in Abu Dhabi City now) creamed off the TV RIghts, collecting 50% of it like what Real and Barca did?

And to generate more dosh, talks of 39th game in off-shore and lucrative match fee..

And why did NFL decided to play one tie in UK..for charity???

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
De Times (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 07:51
How can someone read so much and learn so nothing, where is your duty of care to me Mr. Radio,Merl, and Billy? I'd be taking this up with Padre..

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 08:03
Let's see you choose to read the thread and that is our fault? Grow up mate.

As I said while I dsagree striongly with Merl I do respect a number of libertarian prociples like your right to read or not read whatever you want. But with freedom comes responsibility dude. You made that choice no one made you make it. No one made you open this thread, or even read it once you did - in each case you chose to do and caveat emptor applies mate. I hoppe you're just joking and I am overraecting but seriously your going to take this up with Padre because you're too stupid not to read something that you know is too long or not to stop halfway through when you've decided its too silly to continue in your mind?

Get real mate okay?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 10:17
Quote:
How can someone read so much and learn so nothing

Because they are not bright enough to take it in.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Billythekid (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 10:50
Ok Merlion I'll put it to you like this, the state holds legal title over your name meaning that they own you and there is a word for this, it is known as "slavery".

You are a slave with masters and everything and you are fine with that, remember that when you think of your ancestors and know how ashamed of you they are.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 11:14
Capitalism doesnt work at all. You just dont know it yet.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 11:33
Quote:
Billythekid
Ok Merlion I'll put it to you like this, the state holds legal title over your name meaning that they own you and there is a word for this, it is known as "slavery".
You are a slave with masters and everything and you are fine with that, remember that when you think of your ancestors and know how ashamed of you they are.

hat is why I said ANARCHO-CAPITALISM and a fan of www.mises.org; and what you are having in UK, at best I will say a Nightwatchman State called Fabian Socialism as advocated by Labour Party.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 11:35
Quote:
De Times
How can someone read so much and learn so nothing, where is your duty of care to me Mr. Radio,Merl, and Billy? I'd be taking this up with Padre..

You need to do lots of reading to balance your view as at:
www.mises.org
www.marxists.org
..and lots of anarachism website.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
flynchstone (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 11:40
What the f|_|ck is goin on?

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 11:46
Quote:
celine dion
Capitalism doesnt work at all. You just dont know it yet.

Well, the rise of Latin American country like Brazil and Asian countries, especially CHina from 1978 - and now Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia, maybe follow by Myanmar - disapproved your assertion.

Then what do you call the progress amde from 19th Century Industrial Revolution, DIckensian and Victoria British Society, 1878 Fench COmmune Uprising, 20th Century Hippe Revolution, and right up to 21st Century "Occupy" and "Arab Spring" movements?

Mercantilism (with all the colonial powers rpaing 3rd world coutnry) supplanted Fuedal Society...and then Capitalism supplants Mercantilsim..

Until other and better "-ism" coems along, CAPITALISM is here to stay.

The return to Marxism and their fialed prophets in KArl MArx and Frederick Engels as others had advocated after 2008 Global Credit Crunch???

Like 1930s with economic depression, the rise of both extreme ends can be seen now all over Europe - Fascism at one end..and SOcialism at the other end.

We sure live in interesting time..and my prediction is that as ealry as July and as late as Octoebr, just buckle your safety belt and get ready for FInancial Turmoil with your savings and pension funds may evaporated liek so much mist...

And why Wenegr turned so cautious in his summer spendings as he needed to see off July before he will make any commitment to spend in August. A prudent man who knew what is happening all around Europe.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Philly the kid (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 12:34
^ this.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
De Times (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 12:43
Quote:
RadioFreeArsenal
Let's see you choose to read the thread and that is our fault? Grow up mate.
As I said while I dsagree striongly with Merl I do respect a number of libertarian prociples like your right to read or not read whatever you want. But with freedom comes responsibility dude. You made that choice no one made you make it. No one made you open this thread, or even read it once you did - in each case you chose to do and caveat emptor applies mate. I hoppe you're just joking and I am overraecting but seriously your going to take this up with Padre because you're too stupid not to read something that you know is too long or not to stop halfway through when you've decided its too silly to continue in your mind?

Get real mate okay?
You mean, just as people choose to go to the games at the emirates or not to mate? Interesting point...

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
celine dion (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 13:10
I dont have any savings and my pension pots not worth a w*nk Merlion. So nothing to worry about there.

Anyway, looking down the line a bit further than you are, capitalism has outmanoevred government and is now working for itself, uncontrollable, like a cancer. So it will lead eventually to a world war, inevitably.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Rockstaar (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 14:30
wow..amazing how two simple posts from De Times and Celine can make a thread interesting

take note



http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5066/verminator2.jpg
[arsenalsigs.blogspot.com]

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Jack_is_the_truth (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 14:55
fu.ck me what a snooze fest, my eyes are bleeding and all did was scroll down

Quote:
eduardo
the unholy trinity radio/merl/billy(Sm105) - just glad radio posted first as it saved me reading any of it(Sm120)

(Sm6)(Sm6)



http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/jack-wilshere-goal-vs-marseille-a.gif http://164.177.157.12/img/teams/13.png
The future is now!!!!!!!

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Merlion96 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 17:12
Quote:
celine dion
I dont have any savings and my pension pots not worth a w*nk Merlion. So nothing to worry about there.
Anyway, looking down the line a bit further than you are, capitalism has outmanoevred government and is now working for itself, uncontrollable, like a cancer. So it will lead eventually to a world war, inevitably.

The world is already at war.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
Simon68 (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 18:17
By the same token did not the Arsenal Board put Arsenal Football Club at greater financial and thus, in a manner, personal risk by borrowing an additional 130 million pounds to re-develop Highbury on top of the almost 400 million already borrowed to complete the construction of the Emirates. (Don't forget thet already had spent abort 150 million pound's of the Club's money to start that project.).


Arsenal didn't borrow £400m on top of £150m to build the Stadium.

They used £100m upfront (front loaded sponsorship from Nike and Emirates Airlines plus Granada and catering money accounted for a large chunk of it) and borrowed £260m.

So that's a difference of £290m to start with.

On top of that the profit (after taking care of the short term loan for the developments) from the Highbury Square development and others has reduced our total debt to less than £130m.

Although being no financial expert by any stretch, I would say that those (true) figures indicate a pretty good job in my book.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
13 May, 2012 18:40
I have reviewed some of my figures and you are certainly correct on the first point. I have mistaken 360 for 260 million a number of times, the number 400 has often read as 300 when rounded up because its over 250 million the but you are correct to point this mistake out.

I believe the 150 million however is correct though I shaell double-check that later(have Mother's Day thingies to attend to soon)..


But while I appreciate you pointing out the error I have made lazily and commend your attention to these critical details I should point out if anything it shows the decison to re-develop Highbury by the Board put the Club at oven greater risk as it increased our debt all of which the Club was accountable by more than 40% not the 25 % that I had been making reference to recently, and that it increased our short-term debt and risk even more exponentially than it had if my recklessly cited figure was correct.

But you are absolutely correct and I thank you for pointing that out I should be using 260 million or rounding up to 300 million and had been previously. I hope its just laziness and not age lol.

 
Re: The Curious Case of Arsenal's Duty of Care
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
14 May, 2012 06:52
Quote:
Merlion96
Quote:
celine dion
I dont have any savings and my pension pots not worth a w*nk Merlion. So nothing to worry about there.
Anyway, looking down the line a bit further than you are, capitalism has outmanoevred government and is now working for itself, uncontrollable, like a cancer. So it will lead eventually to a world war, inevitably.

The world is already at war.

Excuse me? Are you serious?


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?