He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?
He could have said it's not within his remit and instead how he's going to tackle gun and knife crime for example. I admit my views are clouded by the fact I think he's a complete and utter bell end.
So, you'd be perfectly happy that a podcast that solely concentrates on sports is turned into a political programme? A politician has been asked a question and you're actually moaning that he's answered it.
You may not like him, but he's the Mayor of the best city in the world; he has the largest personal mandate of any politician in Europe; he's seen a huge and successful expansion of international domestic sport in London, with, for example, every NFL team playing competitive matches in London. He knows what he's talking about.
He said it's inevitable. Do you disagree?
He said "the key thing for me is to make sure our fans don’t lose out". Is this wrong?
What bits of what he's said do you take issue with? Or is the sum total of what you're saying, you "think he's a complete and utter bell end"?
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?
He could have said it's not within his remit and instead how he's going to tackle gun and knife crime for example. I admit my views are clouded by the fact I think he's a complete and utter bell end.
So, you'd be perfectly happy that a podcast that solely concentrates on sports is turned into a political programme? A politician has been asked a question and you're actually moaning that he's answered it.
You may not like him, but he's the Mayor of the best city in the world; he has the largest personal mandate of any politician in Europe; he's seen a huge and successful expansion of international domestic sport in London, with, for example, every NFL team playing competitive matches in London. He knows what he's talking about.
He said it's inevitable. Do you disagree?
He said "the key thing for me is to make sure our fans don’t lose out". Is this wrong?
What bits of what he's said do you take issue with? Or is the sum total of what you're saying, you "think he's a complete and utter bell end"?
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?
He could have said it's not within his remit and instead how he's going to tackle gun and knife crime for example. I admit my views are clouded by the fact I think he's a complete and utter bell end.
So, you'd be perfectly happy that a podcast that solely concentrates on sports is turned into a political programme? A politician has been asked a question and you're actually moaning that he's answered it.
You may not like him, but he's the Mayor of the best city in the world; he has the largest personal mandate of any politician in Europe; he's seen a huge and successful expansion of international domestic sport in London, with, for example, every NFL team playing competitive matches in London. He knows what he's talking about.
He said it's inevitable. Do you disagree?
He said "the key thing for me is to make sure our fans don’t lose out". Is this wrong?
What bits of what he's said do you take issue with? Or is the sum total of what you're saying, you "think he's a complete and utter bell end"?
He could have said it seems likely to rain at some point next week and some people would accuse him of supporting bad weather.
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?
He could have said it's not within his remit and instead how he's going to tackle gun and knife crime for example. I admit my views are clouded by the fact I think he's a complete and utter bell end.
So, you'd be perfectly happy that a podcast that solely concentrates on sports is turned into a political programme? A politician has been asked a question and you're actually moaning that he's answered it.
You may not like him, but he's the Mayor of the best city in the world; he has the largest personal mandate of any politician in Europe; he's seen a huge and successful expansion of international domestic sport in London, with, for example, every NFL team playing competitive matches in London. He knows what he's talking about.
He said it's inevitable. Do you disagree?
He said "the key thing for me is to make sure our fans don’t lose out". Is this wrong?
What bits of what he's said do you take issue with? Or is the sum total of what you're saying, you "think he's a complete and utter bell end"?
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
In case you have missed it .
Plenty of people are struggling to make ends meet. I would suggest watching a game of football at Craven Cottage would be much more affordable than watching a game in Las Vegas. Just saying.
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
It reads as if you are anticipating clubs paying for 20,000 fans to go on an all expenses paid short break to the US in order that they can watch a “home” match. If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?
I’m not sure Sadiq Khan invented taxing motorists.
He didn't even invent ULEZ, that was Boris Johnson, and he didn't even come up with expanding ULEZ, that was the Tories who made it a condition on agreeing TFL funding.
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
In case you have missed it .
Plenty of people are struggling to make ends meet. I would suggest watching a game of football at Craven Cottage would be much more affordable than watching a game in Las Vegas. Just saying.
An 18-game season ticket should be made more affordable than a 19-game season ticket, thereby helping out those finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Of course, no-one would be forced to travel to Las Vegas to watch their team play. It's not compulsory. And it's only suggested to be one "home" game every two years. But, perhaps some would enjoy the chance to take a holiday and catch their team play at the same time.
A season ticket at Arsenal can cost more than a holiday in Las Vegas. And the big advantage of the latter is that you'd only have to watch Arsenal once.
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?
I’m not sure Sadiq Khan invented taxing motorists.
He didn't even invent ULEZ, that was Boris Johnson, and he didn't even come up with expanding ULEZ, that was the Tories who made it a condition on agreeing TFL funding.
I know, but don’t let facts get in the way of a Daily Mail narrative about though.
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
It reads as if you are anticipating clubs paying for 20,000 fans to go on an all expenses paid short break to the US in order that they can watch a “home” match. If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
It's a global sport now though isn't it? The Premier League has two types of club: those with lots of fans worldwide and one where they can usually just about scrape enough fans to fill their own stadium. Man United and Crystal Palace, if you like.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.
I think sadly he's probably right and that it is inevitable one day. Probably as soon as 14 of the 20 PL club owners are American it stands a good shout of getting voted in.
The problem the Premier league has is that international venues will only be interested in hosting the big clubs as that's where the money and interest is. Saudi for example are not going to want to host Bournemouth v Ipswich, they'll want Man U v Liverpool or Arsenal v Chelsea. But they're the big games the actual local based season ticket holders most want to see so it'll cause riots with the fans.
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Or driving around with his entourage in a fleet of Range Rovers. Khant!!!!
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
It reads as if you are anticipating clubs paying for 20,000 fans to go on an all expenses paid short break to the US in order that they can watch a “home” match. If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
It's a global sport now though isn't it? The Premier League has two types of club: those with lots of fans worldwide and one where they can usually just about scrape enough fans to fill their own stadium. Man United and Crystal Palace, if you like.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.
It is hard (impossible?) to make a convincing argument for anything nowadays unless it is economic, so I agree, money talks.
But it is worth trying: - it damages the environment to fly 2 football teams/clubs international long haul to play a domestic competition match - the domestic fans for both clubs get one less match - it is detrimental to player welfare - club football is/should be rooted in the communities from where they originate and their geographical rivalries
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different things
Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different things
Comments
You may not like him, but he's the Mayor of the best city in the world; he has the largest personal mandate of any politician in Europe; he's seen a huge and successful expansion of international domestic sport in London, with, for example, every NFL team playing competitive matches in London. He knows what he's talking about.
He said it's inevitable. Do you disagree?
He said "the key thing for me is to make sure our fans don’t lose out". Is this wrong?
What bits of what he's said do you take issue with? Or is the sum total of what you're saying, you "think he's a complete and utter bell end"?
Ever
An utter cockwomble of a man (Khan I mean)
In fact I'd go so far as to call him a wankpuffin
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
Plenty of people are struggling to make ends meet.
I would suggest watching a game of football at Craven Cottage would be much more affordable than watching a game in Las Vegas.
Just saying.
However, it doesn’t make him any less of a cnut.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
Of course, no-one would be forced to travel to Las Vegas to watch their team play. It's not compulsory. And it's only suggested to be one "home" game every two years. But, perhaps some would enjoy the chance to take a holiday and catch their team play at the same time.
A season ticket at Arsenal can cost more than a holiday in Las Vegas. And the big advantage of the latter is that you'd only have to watch Arsenal once.
On the PL playing abroad question, despite what Chizz says, I don't see much in it for local fans.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.
The problem the Premier league has is that international venues will only be interested in hosting the big clubs as that's where the money and interest is. Saudi for example are not going to want to host Bournemouth v Ipswich, they'll want Man U v Liverpool or Arsenal v Chelsea. But they're the big games the actual local based season ticket holders most want to see so it'll cause riots with the fans.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
But it is worth trying:
- it damages the environment to fly 2 football teams/clubs international long haul to play a domestic competition match
- the domestic fans for both clubs get one less match
- it is detrimental to player welfare
- club football is/should be rooted in the communities from where they originate and their geographical rivalries