Comments on: Football

By: David Duff

David Duff — Sun, 15 May 2005 09:24:00 +0000

A lot of bloggers think I'm a wind-up merchant! Difficult to believe, I know, so let me make clear that (provisionally) I am in favour of legalised drug use. However, there are difficulties. If you make a product cheaper and more easily accessible, then more people will use it. If at the same time, the state, so to speak, gives its imprimatur of approval to a product that hitherto was frowned upon, then again, usage will increase.

At the moment. there is x% of drug users who are, shall we say, out of control, and who will resort to criminality in order to feed their habit. I do not know what that percentage is, but whatever it is, it will increase as the number of drug users increases, and thus, criminality will increase, too.

I must add that I absolutely disagree with your notion of, presumably, government-run clinics for the supply of drugs. Let the market place distribute and sell, and then the government can tax the profits. Personally, I would then disband all those so-called 'drug-busting' agencies and spend the money on a constant and high-powered propoganda campaign warning of the dangers of drug use. However, my quid pro quo for that expenditure is that I would close down all government (and therefor tax-funded) re-hab clinics, on the grounds that if, after all the warnings, an individual takes drugs, then they must take responsibility for their own actions.

(Please don't tell Jim Bliss about this, he'll go even pottier than he already is - er, no pun intended - I think!)

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 12 May 2005 19:30:00 +0000

dsquared: you have surprised me. That's actually very interesting. I'm no economist - is there some caveat to those measurements?

Jez: I like that idea, if I wasn't a total html-moron I'd have a go, but I fear I might fuck the blog up forever.

John S: I like that idea a lot. Unfortunately (in some sense) I also rather value my friendship with John B, and I think he might be extremely pissed off...

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 12 May 2005 18:42:00 +0000

As companies, they’re pretty small. If I get a bit of time tomorrow, I’ll dig up some companies of similar market cap to put it into context (for example, First Choice Holidays is a more important company than Manchester United; Mitchells & Butlers pubs are about twice as important and Burberry is 2.5 times)

By: John S

John S — Thu, 12 May 2005 18:41:00 +0000

Let's try to make SBBS an English version of LGF with similar readers before John's back...

Yes, could we turn over the reins to the commenter who noted that Big Ben is only STILL STANDING thanks to torture in Guantanamo?

By: Jez

Jez — Thu, 12 May 2005 17:13:00 +0000

You could do a nice little redesign of the site to add some footie motifs. I’m sure John would appreciate livening up the background of the site.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 12 May 2005 16:47:00 +0000

I was thinking exactly that! People must eventually realise that football clubs aren’t football teams anymore, they’re companies, supporting a team is jst like supporting BT or Halifax or something. its ludicrous. some random businessman from america is gonna buy manchester united and screw them over, against the wishes of all their fans. serves them right.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 12 May 2005 15:44:00 +0000

I was thinking today that in some cases, such as Chelsea, you think well, you'd be nowhere without Abramovich, so might as well stop moaning. But in United's case there's a pretty good case to make that most of their wealth is based on their 60,000 fans who turn up every week, and any old fool could run the company profitably. So I'm with the fans on this one.

ps "Sorry to those not interested, I just thought I'd take SBBS somewhere John would never go." It's a good idea, but far too tame. Let's try to make SBBS an English version of LGF with similar readers before John's back...