revolution saint

Why is it nuts? Rent control is used throughout the world and was here up till 1980. I appreciate you may not like the solution and you don't have to. It's one possible solution but I'm not sure you really want one. Anyway, if it's patronising then apologies for that.

OK, I'll have one last crack because you're struggling. I've imposed rent control which is obviously going to make it less attractive for landlords. If you're a landlord you might want to sell up but your house isn't worth as much because you can't make so much money renting it out. What do you do? You lower your asking price. Your house then becomes more affordable and the people who buy it will be a combination of existing homeowners, people who were renting or landlords who can accept they won't be making so much money. If they're existing homeowners then their previous property could be bought by people currently renting (or somewhere down the chain) - that's reducing the number of people who are only renting because they can't afford to buy. So what I've done is make the housing market more affordable. There's still a market for renters but it's smaller because there will be less of them. Now there's various ways you can impose rent control, you can have rent stabilisation, you can link rent to CPI, you can link it to council tax bands - all of it will result in BTL becoming less attractive and reducing the price of houses. You can also impose things that make it harder to obtain BTL credit. Whatever, as long as the end result is reducing the price of the housing market. Yes, landlords won't like it and, yes, some people will be in negative equity, that's the downside. Now obviously the better way is to simply build more houses. Anyway, honestly, it you don't understand the principle by now then you never will.

I've already explained it but those houses will either become owned by homeowners (which means fewer renters), or they'll remain within the rental pool but with landlords more prepared to accept less in profit and less at the whim of interest rates. BTL has been a factor in pushing up house prices, making BTL less attractive would mean some fall in house prices. I find it strange that this has become a discussion not about how the housing market can be fixed, but what can we do whilst still preserving the profit margin for landlords. If we're not going to build more houses then tackling the BTL market is the one way of improving the housing situation. Anyway, we're going round in circles so I'm out on this one now. Crack on the rest of you.

Well, if it is happening then I still think that's good for the market. The BTL system is part of the problem.

I think if landlords sell up then eventually that filters down to reduce the number of renters. Those houses will become either occupied by homeowners or they'll be put back out to rent by people prepared to get back less in profit. Also i think you'd be looking at relatively few landlords actually selling up - sure they'll be pissed at not making as much profit but, as I said, businesses were up in arms over the introduction of the minimum wage and none of those dire warnings came to pass . Anything that reduces the profit side of housing will be better in the long run. The obvious thing is to build more houses.

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/article/zach-awe-202223-scout-report-tactical-analysis-tactics Bit of detail on Zach Awe. Never heard of him so I can't really comment.

I would do but they always seem to be just out of reach.

Some landlords will sell up sure but others won't. If landlords are selling up then that's actually a good thing - it'll mean that there's more properties on the market and house prices will fall. TBH you'd expect landlords to complain as it's not in their interest but it reminds me of the dire warnings from business and the CBI when the national minimum wage was brought it. You can choose to look at it from the perspective of of vested interests like landlords but I'm more concerned with the people at the other end of the scale.

Disagree - landlords will get used to it. If current ones don't like it then others will take their place. They'll still be making a profit but less of it.

I'd definitely include JWP. Lavia hasn't featured so much and wasn't that good against Bournemouth - besides which we already have his replacement in Charles. Would need to play with one of Tino or KWP at right back too. So I'd only drop Lavia because he's the only one we can be pretty sure won't be here (and we don't want injured). Everyone else plays on merit regardless of rumours.

Rent control works in the rest of the world, why not here? Hell, they even have it in parts of the US. We're an outlier in that regard.

I dunno, if they're just giving that money away for nothing in return we should probably take it.

One thing you could do would be to implement rent control. You could also limit credit to people who are buying to let - landlords would own their properties outright and would be less subject to interest rate fluctuations.

Much better interviews than the ones he did for the official site and a lot more detail in there. Interesting that he's come out and said explicitly that Russell Martin is his hire. That does suggest that Ankerson has deferred to Wilcox (which is what he should be doing). I'm sure they're all "aligned" etc but good to know that Wilcox is making the decisions. As a fan it's hard to get enthused by "generating asset value" and I don't see it becoming a chant to rival "Up the football league we go" but I understand what they want to do and it's not a bad way to run a club. We're definitely in a better place having kids like Livramento and Lavia as asset values even if we don't hold onto them for as long as we'd like.

I think the gifts varied from person to person. Mine was fucking free holiday and a pair of Baz's gloves.

I'm actually not but unlike you I'm not blind to the limitations of the system we're using. You seem to think that anything bad that happens will be down to the individual qualities of the players rather than the fact that we'll be inviting pressure. Whilst that may happen at times, the system encourages it. It does it for a reason and I understand that reason but all the same - it's a risky strategy and will result in conceding goals regardless of the quality of the players. Here's a good example of that with Swansea playing West Brom last season. Watch the first 40 seconds. Ryan Manning gets caught in possession and plays an awful pass (he did the same against Bournemouth). That's not because of the quality of Ryan Manning - it's because he's playing how he's been told to. Russell Martin understands this, he's warned us mistakes will be made - it's about time you listened to him

Yeah ok, management bollocks then. Probably why Nathan Jones was so fond of the phrase

Read your post wrong - ignore.

Oh come on, a post or two ago you included Stephens and DCC in the "utter trash" group and now one is good enough and the other you haven't seen enough to be totally conclusive on. You're all over the place. You're being naïve if you think getting different players in is going to change a fundamental thing about this system - and that's that the defence will be exposed and it will give up chances. The personnel won't change that massively although it may help when getting the ball into midfield. I'm sure that Martin knows that and it's a trade off he thinks is worth it, or he'll be pragmatic and adjust it. Either way I'm prepared that the defence is going to look dodgy at times.

What is this play on the front foot?

There's only your eyes to mask?

Weren't you championing DCC before we signed him? Seem to recall there was a big clamour for us to get him for a season or so before he actually signed and TBH he's average. I'm sure whoever we bring in (maybe Ronnie Edwards) will be hailed as the great solution and then when it turns out he isn't the new Beckenbauer you'll be calling for us to shift him on and buy better. Again. Your solution to just buy better players is unrealistic - we're not going to get massive upgrades on the players we're trying to shift and we'll be lucky to shift all of them anyway. At some point you'll need to realise that a good manager will work with what he's got and adapt accordingly.

That's true but only to a certain extent. Yes, the individual players could be better but the system actively invites pressure upon them. If the solution to that is simply buy better players then good luck with that - we couldn't get better defenders when we were in the premier league so what makes you think we'll do so now? This should be a compromise situation - yes, Martin has a philosophy of inviting pressure onto the the defence but will also need to be pragmatic enough to know that won't always be possible and adapt to suit the personnel we do have.

Sounds like Baz in league one for Pompey.

Very sad. Not listened to much of her later stuff but I do not want what I haven’t got is a great album.