Member Info for asimpleinvestor

You claim that 'Each year' doesn't imply a historical context, yet it is a phrase defined entirely by the passage of time. If we are to discuss whether interest is rising or falling 'each year,' we must, by necessity, compare the current year to the years that preceded it. That is what a trend is. If you have a different definition of 'each year' one that somehow exists in a vacuum, independent of historical data albeit you have used historical figures yourself then please, enlighten me. How, in your view, can one measure a decline or a boom without establishing a baseline against the preceding years?

@Eightyeight88 I think most people would take someone thanking them for pointing out an error as an apology. However, it’s strange you’re only making the correction now, and even stranger that you didn’t mention it in your previous post when you brought up the original error bit disingenuous don't you think.

If attendances have increased, then why were the highest levels seen in 1948/49 at 81.49% of the population compared to 55.7% in 2024?

I didn’t need to clarify it; you claimed I moved the goalposts, so I quoted the original post to prove you wrong. I will do it again in case you missed it the first two times. " Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball."

Quote "You are just trying to flog a dead horse now asi your original statement didn't compare football to 40 years or even 80 years ago you said it was in decline"

It is a fundamental error to suggest that identifying a 'decline' is a moving target, as any statement regarding the decline of a societal institution is inherently a historical comparison that requires a baseline. Comparing the present to the post-war era or mid-century averages is not 'moving the goalposts' it is how one calculates a long-term trajectory. Whether we look at aggregate attendance per capita or the erosion of grassroots infrastructure, the trend line over the last 80 years is one of diminishing relative engagement. In other words, a decline.

"I am not in the slightest bit angry; I am sat here quite happily in my office, enjoying the day. It is a strange assumption that one must be angry to engage in a factual debate.

It is equally curious that you are so well-informed regarding my interactions with the FCA and the LSE moderation team. As you have brought it up, let us clarify the facts: I did not report another user to the FCA; I proactively contacted them to ensure my own conduct was compliant with financial regulations, and I subsequently shared their response to maintain transparency. My reports to the LSE were directed at abusive behaviour, not the person.

Your intimate knowledge of these moderation outcomes, which are not public information, is highly telling. It raises a significant question: how would you be so aware of what reports were made or how the moderators decided to handle them, unless you were the party involved or a multi-account operator?

Perhaps an inquiry with the moderation team is in order to clarify how you have come by this information. Regardless, I suggest you stop deflecting with these baseless personal narratives and return to the topic at hand: the measurable decline of football’s grassroots foundation

"We were talking about attendance figures not the number of teams where 1 man and his dog watch them:)"

You are attempting to narrow the debate to 'attendance' at major events because it’s the only metric that supports your narrative. But you cannot decouple the spectacle from the foundation.

We are talking about the fact that football is losing its grip on the public consciousness and that interest in the game is demonstrably lower. The opening post of this thread hit the nail on the head: 'Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball.'

Quote "We often talk about the unique power of football to improve lives and drive positive social change. This is brought into focus when we look at the social, health and economic return on investment from grassroots football in England. More people than ever – 15.7 million¹ – are playing football, creating a growing value to society.

The FA’s SROI 2024 report provides robust and compelling evidence of the significant value that the grassroots game contributes – over £15.9bn². All these statistics and the narrative behind them appear in the full report, which you can read on TheFA.com.

Looks like grass roots football is booming asi according to the FA more people than ever are playing it:)"

--

The 15.7 million figure in the FA’s report is not evidence of a boom; it is a statistical artefact. To understand why, you have to look at what has been lost from the sport’s infrastructure.

For decades, football was a core fixture of the national curriculum in schools and a staple of local leisure centres. Furthermore, nearly every town and village once maintained its own grassroots team, a layer of the game that has been systematically eroded as those pitches and clubs have disappeared.

Today, access to the sport is at its lowest point in history. The only reason we see any 'growth' at all is that the state is now attempting to reintroduce football as a clinical tool in anti-obesity campaigns. Even then, the take-up is poor. The FA is essentially measuring the output of government-funded health initiatives and rebranding it as a 'love of the game.'

Comparing this to the post-war era is telling: in 1948/49, with a population of 50 million, we saw 41 million aggregate attendances a result of organic, community-led passion. Today, with 19 million more people, we are forced to rely on broad, diluted definitions of 'participation' to make the numbers look positive. The reality is that the world has moved on; the 'big ticket' spectacle remains a global entertainment product, but the local, grassroots foundation that once sustained the sport has largely vanished

Quote "Gray ....Asi probably will not accept the world cup is the most popular sporting event in the world.....i find it hard to engage with him now ...he got caught out fabricating a coutts isa account lol ..not even an apology if i remember correctly..."

The FIFA World Cup is objectively the most-watched sporting event in the world, but that is a measure of the event, not a reflection of the 'love of the game.' Millions of people interact with it as a global spectacle—they talk about it, engage with the occasion, and create the 'six billion' figures—yet they have no interest in the game itself. You and I are the perfect example: we are dissecting the event, yet neither of us is a fan of the sport.

The real question is what happens when the tournament ends. Do those viewers go on to support teams within their local communities, or do they simply move on to wait for the next 'event fix'? History suggests the latter. By conflating total viewership figures with actual 'support,' organizers are using the popularity of the event to mask the lack of genuine, long-term engagement with the sport.

As for the personal jabs regarding my banking, it’s a typical deflection. My financial portfolio encompassing land, property, and complex investments is naturally intricate, and I have previously corrected technical inaccuracies in my own accounts whenever they’ve arisen. On that occasion it was regards a fixed ISA I had with Santander and a fixed saving account I had with Coutts, an easy mistake to make and yes I apologised at the time for the error, as i always do when i make an error. It is telling that you choose to focus on a 'gotcha' moment regarding a bank account rather than addressing the substance of the argument. It’s far easier to manufacture a narrative about a mistake I've already corrected than to engage with the actual data.

"Two things with Wigan asi. Wigan rugby league play there and can get gates in excess of 15k also they were in the premier league for 8 consecutive seasons when their average gate in the last season was over 19k. They have since played in a lower leagues which for most clubs has a detrimental affect on attendances just has a promoted club garners more support."

The distinction regarding Wigan Athletic is crucial here, as the stadium was built specifically for the football club. The later incorporation of Wigan Warriors was a direct reaction to the financial reality of dwindling football attendance, which actually reinforces the point I made previously: stadium occupancy is often a matter of convenience and venue survival rather than a pure reflection of the sport's health.

Your point regarding the correlation between league position and attendance actually supports my original argument. If attendance is primarily driven by the 'event', the draw of the Premier League or the novelty of a promoted club then it highlights that many attendees are event-seekers rather than consistent supporters of the game itself.

There is a fundamental difference between supporting a sport and attending a major event. By focusing on aggregate attendance figures especially those that fluctuate based on league status you are tracking the popularity of the 'event' rather than the depth of genuine support for the game. When you adjust for population growth and look at the number of people actively engaged in supporting the sport across the UK, the data shows a different trend than raw attendance numbers would suggest

The assertion that there are only 147 football clubs across Britain is a significant under-representation when considering the national landscape. Historically, there are approximately 1,174 identified towns in Britain, and in the post-WWII era, nearly every one of these towns along with many villages maintained its own football team.

Relying on a figure of 147 clubs fails to capture the scale of this grassroots structure and obscures the reality of support numbers. When analysing participation and support, the methodology used is critical:

Per 100,000 Population: When adjusted for population density, data indicates an overall decrease in football support across the country.

Per Capita (Per Head): While raw per-capita figures may suggest an increase, this is a misleading metric. Given that the UK population has grown from approximately 56.3 million in 1980 to 68 million today, a rise in 'per head' figures is an expected demographic outcome rather than a sign of genuine growth in membership or supporter engagement.

To accurately reflect the state of the sport, one must account for population inflation and the sheer volume of clubs that have historically formed the bedrock of British football, rather than relying on skewed per-capita data.

The claim that there will be 'six billion engagements' is a classic example of a 'vanity metric' that collapses under basic logical and mathematical scrutiny.

As it is written, the phrase 'engaging over six billion people across 16 cities' is a geographical absurdity. Even setting aside the physical impossibility of having 75% of the global population within 16 cities, the math behind the 'six billion' figure itself is fundamentally decoupled from the number of human beings involved.

In the world of digital analytics, 'engagement' is defined by volume, not unique individuals. Because this metric aggregates every click, page refresh, video loop, and social media impression, it is mathematically possible to reach six billion 'engagements' with a fraction of that number in actual people. In fact, if one defines an engagement as a single digital impression, a small group of high-frequency users—or even a network of automated scripts—could generate millions of those interactions alone.

By choosing to report 'total engagements' rather than 'unique human viewers,' the organizers are effectively using a measure of data noise to simulate the appearance of global ubiquity. When you factor in that many 'engagements' are accidental, passive, or repeated by the same user, it becomes clear that this number is a commercial projection designed for advertisers, not a reflection of the actual number of people interested in the sport.

Regarding the link, I couldn’t find our local club that closed 11 years ago, nor another nearby club that’s still open. This suggests the figures are inaccurate and incomplete, as they only account for data from 142 clubs. It appears that Bootle FC has only had 29500 attendees over a 137 year period and Wigan only has 10,000 per year attendees. I wonder why they built a 25,000 seater stadium if they only have 10,000 attendees a year.

"Asi engaged also means watching it on the tv:)"

Even if we accept the broadest possible definition of 'engagement' including every casual glance at a highlights reel on social media the quote still explicitly limits the location of these six billion people to 'across 16 cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.' That phrasing asserts that 75% of the global population is contained within those specific urban areas, which is physically impossible.

"By the way I never mentioned grass roots football and neither did you and you never mentioned a comparison to 40 years ago either stop changing the narrative to suit your argument."

I didn’t mention tier one football; I was talking about the spectator sport as a whole. As I said, “Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball.”

Taken to its natural conclusion, that statement applies not only to a few games in large stadiums but to any game played anywhere, from major events to street corners. So where exactly am I shifting the narrative The point from the start has been about the number of spectators watching football. If attendance were increasing, more clubs would be opening rather than closing, and at the community level, more people would be standing outside in the pouring rain to watch their local team instead of building houses on the grounds where their clubs used to be.

"engaging over six billion people across 16 cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada."

Eh! You haven't attended the Trump school of economics, have you? 75% of the entire human population of the planet will be physically present in, or directly engaged within, these specific three locations.

@Gray1, you're conflating stadium capacity with national popularity. A sell-out at a 30,000-seat stadium for a top tier game doesn't prove that more people care about football today than 40 years ago; it only proves that the stadium isn't big enough to house the local demand for that specific event.

If you want to measure the sport's true health, look at the grassroots level, not the elite spectacle. Forty years ago, local clubs were the social hubs of their towns, anchored by community infrastructure like local pubs and volunteer networks. Today, we’ve seen a hollowing out of that ecosystem. Many towns don’t even have a club anymore, and the ones that remain are often struggling to survive against rising costs and a declining footfall.

Using Premier League sell-outs to judge the sport’s popularity is like judging the health of a forest by looking only at the tallest trees while ignoring the dead undergrowth. Much of the 'interest' we see today is driven by the 'event' culture people attending for the spectacle, the atmosphere, or social cachet, similar to how someone might attend a major music festival despite having no interest in the industry itself. That's a shift toward commercial consumption, not an increase in the sport's depth of popularity.

@NewKOTB, you are misrepresenting the situation. The thread wasn't removed because of the content of my posts; it was removed due to the conduct of those who chose to breach forum rules with insulting behaviour and personal attacks rather than engaging with the evidence provided.

You call it 'NSI & HMG rubbish,' yet you offer no evidence to the contrary. My position regarding the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act 2021 is based on the statutory implications of accepting government subsidies for critical infrastructure, a clear change in the corporate risk profile. I presented the legislative basis for this over the weekend, and it remains unchanged. If you disagree, provide the evidence that proves those statutory risks are non-existent. Otherwise, your 'scaremongering' label is merely an attempt to dismiss an evidenced based argument because it conflicts with your preferred narrative.

As noted, the SAU clearance on 20th May is already public knowledge, so I am not 'peddling' information; I am simply pointing out that the shift in ITM’s status from a private commercial entity to a core participant in UK energy sovereignty carries regulatory consequences that shareholders would do well to understand. I won't argue again, as that is clearly the objective to get another thread removed that doesn't align with your narrative. The upside is that the subsidies and government contracts provide stability and growth for both the company and its shareholders; the downside is that this comes with government caveats that cannot be ignored.

@STP Right now, the big buzz in the investing world seems to be all about the upcoming SpaceX IPO on Friday, rather than concerning themselves with the usual game of kicky ball. Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball.

"ASI is back after his ridiculous posts over the weekend, how long will he last this time, although its tone has change, wonder why .. hummm ?"

@NewKOTB, my previous posts were not about the mechanics of grant payments, but about the regulatory implications of ITM positioning itself as a core component of UK energy infrastructure. By entering into government contracts and subsidies, ITM has fundamentally shifted the goalposts: under the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act 2021, this designation means any significant foreign equity interest or takeover attempt now carries a heightened risk of being 'called in' for a national security review. You cannot simultaneously position a company as vital to UK energy sovereignty and expect its shareholder base to remain insulated from government scrutiny.

Regarding the grant itself, the Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU) report cleared the statutory review stage on 20th May 2026. This is a matter of public record; the market already knows the 'intent' is compliant. What we are waiting for now and what will likely be RNS'd is the formalisation of the Grant Funding Agreement (GFA) and the associated Final Investment Decision (FID) for the Chronos line.

My points were simply highlighting that state intervention changes the corporate risk profile. Disagreeing with the legislative impact of the NSI Act doesn't make that reality any less significant nor indeed any less true.

"The problem I see with itm is there news flow always seem to be jam tomorrow. I have pulled my money out and tried my luck with Gex . If they find half of what there looking for then it will do well . Very well"

"@stevehuges – Isn't 'jam tomorrow' actually the defining characteristic of both? The difference is the scale and the backing.

GEX is a £14m market cap, pre-revenue exploration play. You are betting on geology and the binary outcome of a drill bit. ITM is a near £1bn market cap industrial manufacturer with £40m+ in annual revenue, significant government grants, and a £150m+ order book. ITM is currently using its massive cash balance to build infrastructure; GEX is using dilutive share issues just to fund its next drilling campaign.

Fundamentally, there is no comparison regarding financial stability. It comes down to your objective:

ITM is an industrial resilience play. You are betting on them becoming a permanent, utility-like fixture in the energy transition. They are built for long term endurance, provided they survive the current political and policy cycle.

GEX is an 'upside explosion' play. If they actually hit a viable helium or hydrogen resource, the percentage return could dwarf ITM’s because you are taking them from 'unproven asset' to 'commercial reserve.'

One is an attempt to build a business that lasts decades; the other is a high-beta bet on discovery. They are very different tools for very different goals.