Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ridiculous !!!
Comments
-
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.LargeAddick said:
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.Chizz said:
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?LargeAddick said:
WTF has it got to do with him anyway?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
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"?4 -
yep, that's about the long and short of it.Chizz said:
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.LargeAddick said:
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.Chizz said:
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?LargeAddick said:
WTF has it got to do with him anyway?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
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"?2 -
He could have said it seems likely to rain at some point next week and some people would accuse him of supporting bad weather.Chizz said:
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.LargeAddick said:
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.Chizz said:
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?LargeAddick said:
WTF has it got to do with him anyway?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
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"?12 -
OK, thank you for being honestLargeAddick said:
yep, that's about the long and short of it.Chizz said:
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.LargeAddick said:
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.Chizz said:
He was asked a question on a podcast and he answered it. Do you think he should have refused to answer?LargeAddick said:
WTF has it got to do with him anyway?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
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"?0 -
Can i just say this is the first person I have EVER seen to say they like Sadiq Khan in public.Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Ever
An utter cockwomble of a man (Khan I mean)
In fact I'd go so far as to call him a wankpuffin8 -
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.0 -
In case you have missed it .Chizz said: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.
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.11 -
If it happens I wonder if season ticket prices will be reduced to compensate for the loss of two home games. No I thought not.2
-
Surely that would be down to each individual club.LargeAddick said:If it happens I wonder if season ticket prices will be reduced to compensate for the loss of two home games. No I thought not.0 -
Of course but I bet it doesn't happen.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Surely that would be down to each individual club.LargeAddick said:If it happens I wonder if season ticket prices will be reduced to compensate for the loss of two home games. No I thought not.0 - Sponsored links:
-
He just answered a question he was asked, not sure why there’s a whole article on it.
However, it doesn’t make him any less of a cnut.2 -
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.Chizz said: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.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.5 -
I’m not sure Sadiq Khan invented taxing motorists.ross1 said:
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other9 -
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.se9addick said:
I’m not sure Sadiq Khan invented taxing motorists.ross1 said:
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other14 -
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.blackpool72 said:
In case you have missed it .Chizz said: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.
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.
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.3 -
I know, but don’t let facts get in the way of a Daily Mail narrative about though.randy andy said:
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.se9addick said:
I’m not sure Sadiq Khan invented taxing motorists.ross1 said:
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other8 -
It was meant to happen in 2010 and didn't. Khan's right though. Good to see a politician give a straight and honest answer.
11 -
Strong words and feelings indeed.Swisdom said:
Can i just say this is the first person I have EVER seen to say they like Sadiq Khan in public.Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Ever
An utter cockwomble of a man (Khan I mean)
In fact I'd go so far as to call him a wankpuffin
On the PL playing abroad question, despite what Chizz says, I don't see much in it for local fans.1 -
Theoretically possible, yes, but in fact I live in Lewisham, with tons of traffic specially on the A20, so happy to have the ULEZ.ross1 said:
He may have moved outside London since voting for him 🤔NornIrishAddick said:
I would imagine that voting for him might be somewhat problematic if he doesn't...ross1 said:
I assume you do not live in London within his tax the motorist scheme?Arthur_Trudgill said:I like/voted for Sadiq Khan, but competitive Premier League matches abroad is a bad idea.
The environmental impact alone of all that air travelling is terrible.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/26/premier-league-games-being-held-abroad-is-inevitable-says-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other9 -
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.Covered End said:
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.Chizz said: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.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
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.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Argh the European Super League massively missed a trick, they should have just got Sadiq Khan to announce it and then it would have been a great idea!0
-
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.3 -
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.1
-
He had nothing to do with the NFL coming to London.0
-
Or driving around with his entourage in a fleet of Range Rovers. Khant!!!!Gribbo said: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.0 -
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?Gribbo said: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.0 -
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
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?Gribbo said: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.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
1 -
It is hard (impossible?) to make a convincing argument for anything nowadays unless it is economic, so I agree, money talks.Chizz said:
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.Covered End said:
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.Chizz said: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.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
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.
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
5 -
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
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?Gribbo said: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.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄8 -
Exactly this. Death is inevitable.Rothko said:
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
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?Gribbo said: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.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
0
