Quote: Leevil @ September 30 2009, 4:11 PM BST

£10000000.00?

View original

Lol. It would be nice.

Quote: AndreaLynne @ September 30 2009, 4:18 PM BST

Yep. He was a Vietnam vet who was let out of the hospital here and just couldn't cope with the "real" world. He'd been there for 10 years I guess. He was told he was ok. My son woke up before his alarm clock and took the dog out. If he had got up at his regular time, he would've been the first to find him most likely.

View original

Get yourself outta there! Mind you, suppose that could've happened anywhere.

It's happened twice in the last 18 months. A lady in the next section over OD'd 3 weeks ago. They found her 5 days later. Blech!

Quote: EllieJP @ September 29 2009, 10:57 AM BST

I think I would change the amount footballers are paid to a reasonable amount and have more money spent on providing more help with the NHS and paying the staff better.

View original

<3

The only thing is the revenue that pays the players wouldn't exist without them. Where would it come from to go the NHS? The team sponsors, from the showing rights, season tickets? It would be great if the government paid the players and could spend the money elsewhere instead, but it doesn't work like that sadly.

I don't know that Ellie was necessarily talking about direct transfer of the funding, because I certainly wasn't. Of course it wouldn't work in that sense, but the principles behind it are the issue.

If you were to change footballers' wages to a 'reasonable amount' it would have to have a knock on effect. By the same principles you'd have to try and limit the wages of musicians, TV entertainers, actors, writers, poets, painters, artists and a whole multitude of people. They are in the business of entertainment, they get paid as much as people are willing to pay, like Dolly said. It's hard to pin down a reasonable value for what they do, because it's entertainment. Should peoples wages been dictated by their economic benefit to society, their 'usefulness,' by the happiness they bring or the simple exercise of supply and demand?

It always seems footballers are peoples tipping point for when they don't think entertainment is worth the money. It's almost an easy target. Another point to be made is that the footballing industry provides employment for many people up and down the country, it has a tangible economic benefit otherwise it wouldn't exist. If you drove down footballers wages the endpoint would be a drop in quality and that would result in a loss of money for people throughout the industry.

I'm not of course arguing that NHS wages shouldn't be raised, but I fail to see how you can link those with footballer's wages. You could make the argument that you could cut down NHS bureaucracy to save money or the wasted money that's filtered into government schemes to build computer systems for it. Then you'd be on sound footing.

Also, students clearly have too much time on their hands.

Hehe! I am not going to read that, Harker, because we've argued this before.

I'm going to pretend that's girlfriend code for "I know you're right."

Suuuure.

(Also, so off-topic, but I'm not ignoring you. I just have to do lots of reading. Coursepack time in a mo. )

Quote: Scatterbrained Floozy @ September 30 2009, 5:51 PM BST

Suuuure.

(Also, so off-topic, but I'm not ignoring you. I just have to do lots of reading. Coursepack time in a mo. )

View original

(I knooooow. When did we get so self-concious about hijacking threads that we started skulking around in brackets? )

(I like the brackets. They are warm.)

()

(Feel the heat) It is switched on?