The Election Thread

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Election Thread

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 123 of 215 < 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 >

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 19 7.06pm
Originally posted by Badger11 I agree Sport is commercial let the market sort it out. If the public want to watch they will pay the going rate. Same with the sponsors and the advertisers. Yep, whenever I hear 'equality' nowadays you just know that in some cases someone's being conned out of what merit should provide them. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 7.07pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 19 7.06pm

Originally posted by Badger11

I agree

Sport is commercial let the market sort it out. If the public want to watch they will pay the going rate. Same with the sponsors and the advertisers.

Yep, whenever I hear 'equality' nowadays you just know that in some cases someone's being conned out of what merit should provide them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 7.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 7.18pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I've continually said that the tournament pot size has been earned disproportionately by gender and you keep talking about the tournament pot as though sharing it out equally is fair. Yes, but, in the case of the major tournaments, it is sold as a package, men and women. Your argument is that men bring in more, but mine is that the top seeds bring in more. This is normal in all tournaments. So, if Palace win the league, is it fair they earn more than Man City, who have had more viewers and more advert money come in for their games? I say yes, because it's a package. Once you have separate tournaments with just men and women, then they will earn what they bring in. So, whilst men may be more athletic than women, women seem to be naturally smarter in this case. They have seen men earn more and they don't want men to earn less, they want to earn more, to be on par. Strategically, they have outsmarted men. Is it fair, maybe not, but they've made their own luck. Again, the entertainment industry isn't real life. I give up....We totally disagree and as for you telling me I don't understand how equality of opportunity works when I've already explained how it inherently contains problems......I had to chuckle at that one. I believe you think you know what equality of opportunity is, but the actual problems that are inherent in that political philosophy, I can't see, unless 'Nature' is the problem. We may just have different definitions. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 6.35pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 7.18pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I've continually said that the tournament pot size has been earned disproportionately by gender and you keep talking about the tournament pot as though sharing it out equally is fair.

Yes, but, in the case of the major tournaments, it is sold as a package, men and women. Your argument is that men bring in more, but mine is that the top seeds bring in more.

This is normal in all tournaments. So, if Palace win the league, is it fair they earn more than Man City, who have had more viewers and more advert money come in for their games? I say yes, because it's a package.

Once you have separate tournaments with just men and women, then they will earn what they bring in.

So, whilst men may be more athletic than women, women seem to be naturally smarter in this case. They have seen men earn more and they don't want men to earn less, they want to earn more, to be on par. Strategically, they have outsmarted men. Is it fair, maybe not, but they've made their own luck.

Again, the entertainment industry isn't real life.

I give up....We totally disagree and as for you telling me I don't understand how equality of opportunity works when I've already explained how it inherently contains problems......I had to chuckle at that one.

I believe you think you know what equality of opportunity is, but the actual problems that are inherent in that political philosophy, I can't see, unless 'Nature' is the problem.

We may just have different definitions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 6.35pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 19 8.08pm
Originally posted by Jway89 Yes, but, in the case of the major tournaments, it is sold as a package, men and women. Your argument is that men bring in more, but mine is that the top seeds bring in more. Hardly......As for 'sold as a package'. People don't watch tennis like that. They turn up for or tune into the matches that interest them. How the organization distributes funds is separate from how they are earned. I'm stating the unfairness of it. Originally posted by Jway89 This is normal in all tournaments. So, if Palace win the league, is it fair they earn more than Man City, who have had more viewers and more advert money come in for their games? I say yes, because it's a package. You are referring to an all male 'league'. So essentially you're saying that if the Premiership decide that both men's and women's football are to be sold 'as a package'....because the women's league runs along side the men's....Then the Women should be paid the same?.....What's the difference....because it's the same logic... and it's independent of how many people watch men's football as opposed to women's football Originally posted by Jway89 Once you have separate tournaments with just men and women, then they will earn what they bring in. They are separate....they attract separate attendance figures and viewership.....but we are going round in circles. Originally posted by Jway89 So, whilst men may be more athletic than women, women seem to be naturally smarter in this case. They have seen men earn more and they don't want men to earn less, they want to earn more, to be on par. Strategically, they have outsmarted men. Is it fair, maybe not, but they've made their own luck. You seem to be forgetting that the people who make these decisions on equal pay have been men.....Men, with politics like yourself. So when you're talking about how smart it is for men to accept feminist ideas that are anti market based.....Mmmmm. Originally posted by Jway89 Again, the entertainment industry isn't real life. Well, it's over represented with commies and chutney ferrets that's for sure. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 8.13pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 19 8.08pm

Originally posted by Jway89

Yes, but, in the case of the major tournaments, it is sold as a package, men and women. Your argument is that men bring in more, but mine is that the top seeds bring in more.

Hardly......As for 'sold as a package'. People don't watch tennis like that. They turn up for or tune into the matches that interest them. How the organization distributes funds is separate from how they are earned.

I'm stating the unfairness of it.

Originally posted by Jway89

You are referring to an all male 'league'.

So essentially you're saying that if the Premiership decide that both men's and women's football are to be sold 'as a package'....because the women's league runs along side the men's....Then the Women should be paid the same?.....What's the difference....because it's the same logic... and it's independent of how many people watch men's football as opposed to women's football

Originally posted by Jway89

Once you have separate tournaments with just men and women, then they will earn what they bring in.

They are separate....they attract separate attendance figures and viewership.....but we are going round in circles.

Originally posted by Jway89

So, whilst men may be more athletic than women, women seem to be naturally smarter in this case. They have seen men earn more and they don't want men to earn less, they want to earn more, to be on par. Strategically, they have outsmarted men. Is it fair, maybe not, but they've made their own luck.

You seem to be forgetting that the people who make these decisions on equal pay have been men.....Men, with politics like yourself. So when you're talking about how smart it is for men to accept feminist ideas that are anti market based.....Mmmmm.

Originally posted by Jway89

Again, the entertainment industry isn't real life.

Well, it's over represented with commies and chutney ferrets that's for sure.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Nov 2019 8.13pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 8.52pm
I'll pick up a couple of points; People don't watch tennis like that. They turn up for or tune into the matches that interest them. No they don't. They may only watch 3/4 matches that interest them, but they pay the same subscription/license fee, if watching at home. You are referring to an all male 'league'. I am referring to a package deal. If you take out the top 5/6 teams of the Prem, then revenues will fall. Man Utd are a team that bring in more money than Palace, but if we finish 3rd and they finish 4th, we get paid more, which is right, but they have contributed more. You choose to split it between male and female, whilst I see a tournament with prize money as the base. If you want to add in viewership bonuses to players, I'm all for that. You seem to be forgetting that the people who make these decisions on equal pay have been men.....Men, with politics like yourself. So when you're talking about how smart it is for men to accept feminist ideas that are anti market based.....Mmmmm. Incorrect. It's fully understandable that I said the women were smarter than the men here, which is an obvious fact. It's not about feminist ideas. Your interpretation of the tournament format pay system is different to mine. So, we have a semi final in the women's of S Williams vs Kerber and Nadal vs Stepanek. Under your system, the guys would be paid the same, but higher than the women. What I am saying is that they should all be paid the same, as they are part of the Wimbledon tournament, but bonuses should be given to the players based on viewership figures and other bonuses. I don't think that's unfair. Edited by Jway89 (30 Nov 2019 8.52pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 8.52pm

I'll pick up a couple of points;

People don't watch tennis like that. They turn up for or tune into the matches that interest them.

No they don't. They may only watch 3/4 matches that interest them, but they pay the same subscription/license fee, if watching at home.

You are referring to an all male 'league'.

I am referring to a package deal. If you take out the top 5/6 teams of the Prem, then revenues will fall. Man Utd are a team that bring in more money than Palace, but if we finish 3rd and they finish 4th, we get paid more, which is right, but they have contributed more.
You choose to split it between male and female, whilst I see a tournament with prize money as the base. If you want to add in viewership bonuses to players, I'm all for that.

Incorrect. It's fully understandable that I said the women were smarter than the men here, which is an obvious fact.

It's not about feminist ideas. Your interpretation of the tournament format pay system is different to mine.

So, we have a semi final in the women's of S Williams vs Kerber and Nadal vs Stepanek. Under your system, the guys would be paid the same, but higher than the women.

What I am saying is that they should all be paid the same, as they are part of the Wimbledon tournament, but bonuses should be given to the players based on viewership figures and other bonuses. I don't think that's unfair.

Edited by Jway89 (30 Nov 2019 8.52pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 19 8.59pm
Well I tried....it's like talking a different language. The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other and the future isn't going to go well. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 19 8.59pm

Well I tried....it's like talking a different language.

The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other and the future isn't going to go well.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 30 Nov 19 10.29pm
Poll overload today CON: 39% (-2) LAB: 33% (+5) Via @BMGResearch , 27-29 Nov. Changes w/ 19-21 Nov. CON: 46% (-1) LAB: 31% (+3) LDEM: 13% (+1) BREX: 2% (-1) via @OpiniumResearch, 27 - 29 Nov Chgs. w/ 22 Nov CON: 43% (+2) LAB: 33% (-1) LDM: 13% (=) BXP: 4% (-1) Via @SavantaComRes 27-28 Nov. Changes w/ 25-26 Nov. CON: 45% (+2) LAB: 32% (+2) LDM: 15% (-1) BXP: 3% (=) VIa @DeltapollUK Britain Elects: Westminster voting intention: CON: 43% (-) LAB: 34% (+2) LDEM: 13% (-) GRN: 3% (+1) BREX: 2% (-2) via @YouGov , 28 - 29 Nov Chgs. w/ 26 Nov
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

30 Nov 19 10.29pm

Poll overload today

CON: 39% (-2) LAB: 33% (+5) Via @BMGResearch , 27-29 Nov. Changes w/ 19-21 Nov.

CON: 46% (-1) LAB: 31% (+3) LDEM: 13% (+1) BREX: 2% (-1) via @OpiniumResearch, 27 - 29 Nov Chgs. w/ 22 Nov

CON: 43% (+2) LAB: 33% (-1) LDM: 13% (=) BXP: 4% (-1) Via @SavantaComRes 27-28 Nov. Changes w/ 25-26 Nov.

CON: 45% (+2) LAB: 32% (+2) LDM: 15% (-1) BXP: 3% (=) VIa @DeltapollUK

Britain Elects: Westminster voting intention: CON: 43% (-) LAB: 34% (+2) LDEM: 13% (-) GRN: 3% (+1) BREX: 2% (-2) via @YouGov , 28 - 29 Nov Chgs. w/ 26 Nov

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 10.39pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well I tried....it's like talking a different language. The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other and the future isn't going to go well. I'll give you a b+ for effort . Tbh i dont think we are far off agreement. Tbh, entertainment is a microcosm of the reality and from my own personal experience women get paid less for pretty much the same roles and performance as men and british men at the lower end get shafted by immigrants willing to do the jobs fof less. So, you will view it all from a demographic stance whilst, i look at it from a price control perspective.
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 10.39pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well I tried....it's like talking a different language.

The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other and the future isn't going to go well.

I'll give you a b+ for effort . Tbh i dont think we are far off agreement.

Tbh, entertainment is a microcosm of the reality and from my own personal experience women get paid less for pretty much the same roles and performance as men and british men at the lower end get shafted by immigrants willing to do the jobs fof less.

So, you will view it all from a demographic stance whilst, i look at it from a price control perspective.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 19 10.51pm
Originally posted by Jway89 I'll give you a b+ for effort . Tbh i dont think we are far off agreement. Tbh, entertainment is a microcosm of the reality and from my own personal experience women get paid less for pretty much the same roles and performance as men and british men at the lower end get shafted by immigrants willing to do the jobs fof less. So, you will view it all from a demographic stance whilst, i look at it from a price control perspective. I still enjoyed the debate and while we have different hats on you're obviously a poster who's willing to discuss ideas. Which is a testament to you. Still, I can't say I agree with how the system has and is changing....but there you go. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 19 10.51pm

Originally posted by Jway89

I'll give you a b+ for effort . Tbh i dont think we are far off agreement.

So, you will view it all from a demographic stance whilst, i look at it from a price control perspective.

I still enjoyed the debate and while we have different hats on you're obviously a poster who's willing to discuss ideas.

Which is a testament to you.

Still, I can't say I agree with how the system has and is changing....but there you go.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 11.28pm
I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble.
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 11.28pm

I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 30 Nov 19 11.31pm
Originally posted by Jway89 I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble. By implication, if you were smarter, you'd hold different views. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

30 Nov 19 11.31pm

Originally posted by Jway89

I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble.

By implication, if you were smarter, you'd hold different views.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 30 Nov 19 11.37pm
Originally posted by Jway89 I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble. There's not really much of a cross section of views here now I'm afraid. Nature of the Internet init bruv.
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

30 Nov 19 11.37pm

Originally posted by Jway89

I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble.

There's not really much of a cross section of views here now I'm afraid. Nature of the Internet init bruv.

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 11.39pm
Originally posted by dollardays There's not really much of a cross section of views here now I'm afraid. Nature of the Internet init bruv. I'm an optimistic pessimist
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 30 Nov 19 11.39pm

Originally posted by dollardays

There's not really much of a cross section of views here now I'm afraid. Nature of the Internet init bruv.

I'm an optimistic pessimist

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 123 of 215 < 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Election Thread

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors