You must log in or register to see media
Neville makes some good points, even acknowledging his own part in the problem.
Sky seem to have accepted that the £14.95 thing is ****ing ridiculous, too.
most of the UK banks which folded only did so due to notional losses based on downgrading their loans to risky doesn't mean to say they wouldn't have been repaid particularly in the case of mortgages as shown by ones like Bradford & Bingley .It amazes me that if I am out of work for a year, I have funds for that scenario, luckily. I'm not even remotely wealthy by even the most surreal stretch of the word. I'm a bit of a hungry **** toward myself is all
Institutions/businesses/banks that deal in billions have almost no resilience and it falls on those who saved a few bob they need during a pandemic to bail them out with gov loans to be paid back later and buying 15 quid a game games when you cant even have the lads around to watch
Ugh
most of the UK banks which folded only did so due to notional losses based on downgrading their loans to risky doesn't mean to say they wouldn't have been repaid particularly in the case of mortgages as shown by ones like Bradford & Bingley .
if banks had to be able to hold as much cash as they had loaned out the present system collapses .If you've risks and you don't mitigate them, and then they become exposed, and you had to receive cash injections, it's pretty much what I said I think. I meant banks in general in the whole 2008 mess
if banks had to be able to hold as much cash as they had loaned out the present system collapses .
in real life though the banks wouldn't close .Banks that didn't close, traded in ****, made fortunes and when the risks were exposed to sunlight, the assets (can I call bad debt assets?) became ****, which is a better way of saying their loans were downgradedtbh I was generally complaining, I didn't put that much thought into it.
I'm no finance oddball either. So don't confuse me
in real life though the banks wouldn't close .
By that i mean as an individual you have a mortgage but your house collapses in value . As long as you still have the income to pay the mortgage it doesn't stop you carrying on however the flip side of that is the bank holding the mortgage may be forced to look for new finance or owners .
the septic ones that had been sold on yeah .yeah I get you, but wasn't it also that the issue was that so many of those mortgages were junk, never ever going to be repaid, millions of them.
the septic ones that had been sold on yeah .

on British banks more to the point no directors etc faced any sort of charge despite in some cases pretty clear evidence of dodgy behaviour the most obvious example being the first to go to the wall Northern Rock where most of the good assets had been transferred to another company set up by a number of the senior staff leaving the actual bank with all the bad assets .thanks for the explanation.![]()
on British banks more to the point no directors etc faced any sort of charge despite in some cases pretty clear evidence of dodgy behaviour the most obvious example being the first to go to the wall Northern Rock where most of the good assets had been transferred to another company set up by a number of the senior staff leaving the actual bank with all the bad assets .
Put it this way the Daily Telegraph was very outspoken that in both cases charges should have been laid .
at least the septics fined them and did bang a few up iirc here they just trousered ****ing huge pay offs when the Govt convinced some sucker to take them over - hello LloydsSimilar thinks went down in Ireland
ffs Goldman Sachs were just fined a few billion for bribery n sheeeet. Number of convicted banking execs = 0
at least the septics fined them and did bang a few up iirc here they just trousered ****ing huge pay offs when the Govt convinced some sucker to take them over - hello Lloyds
goes to US Treasury i'd imagine if not presumably SEC .I'd agree with at least if the money actually went somewhere, wtf happens that 3 billion fine?
The Qatari’s and the Saudis are as bad a each other.. I don't actually care too much a out mega money I just want the club to move way from the lidl look, but this is the only genuine interest and I don't actually care about morals tbh.. Who makes the rules on morality? Where do you draw the line? I won't lie I'd take anyone just to see my team doing better.. I'm just being honest.. Some fans said " we don't decide on the owner" I was like stfu if you had a vote you'd vote for these Saudis. I care not one iota about what goes on in Saudi in the same way I don't care about this country making billions from arms sales for them to blow up people in yemen.
It's awful and the world is awful and I live in blissful ignorance... Do I feel guilty? Not really I'm just trying to get through my own battle.
Should I want this takeover? No I shouldn't
Swiss owners mate, that's what you want. Somebody who owns a company that actually makes stuff (like we used to do in this country, before we became a nation of spivs and chancers).
We had one of them, but he died. Just our luck.