Funny how many "pressmen" speak about the "pull of London" or similar. Now whilst I can see the attraction for a young footballer , someone from overseas whose family would fly in to London, or members of certain minority groups (homosexuals for example) who would benefit from the inclusivity of London, I really can't see the draw for a 55 year old married Geordie. Bear in mind that to get the sort of property he would want in East Yorkshire would cost £1,000,000 -- in London £10,000,000 and it still wouldn't be as nice. It would probably cost him his entire pay rise just to park his car on match day. I wonder what odds I could get on Brucie staying?
I think the original Fulham link came about as Niall Quinn was one of those tasked with finding a new manager. Does Quinn still have links with Fulham?
You're right of course, London has the exclusivity for inclusivity of homosexuals. Homosexuals do only benefit in the Capital City. I've never seen, met, or even heard of, a successful or accepted homosexual outside of the Capital.
Read it again, that is not what I said. But the London nightlife does make it more attractive to people with speciality interests. You used the word exclusivity, I used inclusivity. I appreciate you are trying to score points at my expense, and I'm sure you've met many homosexuals all over the world, but that doesn't distract from the likelihood that Steve Bruce isn't interested in a more active nightlife than a beer after golf.
I remember not long after I moved down to London in 1973 we lived in a room in a four storey terraced house very near to Hampstead Heath and we had George Melley, Miriam Karlin (even though Wiki says she lived in South London!) and Lynsey de Paul as close neighbours. The house was worth about £50,000 then. We came back to Hull for a long weekend and went to a wedding reception held in a tent in the grounds of a big white mansion west of Hull which was also then worth about £50,000 too. Having said that you can still get reasonable priced houses in London if you don't need to live in Westminster or Kensington.
You've clearly been watching this week's question time coming out with a statement like that, Peter. Unless you find £500k "reasonable".
I recorded it but I haven't watched it yet. Why do you mention £500k? I lived at home until I was 21 and rented until I was 38. My dad didn't buy a property until he was 42. Now a lot of people seem to think they should be able to buy a property soon after they start working.
http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/avg_prices.html There seems to be some very reasonable prices. Even my area, SW19, doesn't seem too bad.
I worked in Haringey from 1969-73 and you'd need a few more bob than £50,000 to have lived off Hampstead Lane eg.The Bishop's Ave., Compton Ave. and Courtney Ave., etc. A tad out of my price range. Think Lynsey de Paul moved to Hornsey later.
£500k is the average London price now. It's also the estimated price for the crap 1-bed converted not-fit-for-purpose flat i used to rent in Southfields. I have rented ever since I left home at 18 and now find myself as part of the boomerang generation. I don't know many people of a similar age to myself who own in London at all, let alone soon after they have started working.
Not trying to score points, there's no game being played. Merely highlighting, in a sarcastic manner, that what you said was bollocks.
At the risk of turning this thread political a lot of people were encouraged to buy a property as soon as they could say interest rate by the actions of a certain Mrs T in the 80's. One man's reasonable, is another man's unattainable.
