Member Info for Gray1

It would appear that the Labour voters detest Starmer that much they are willing give Burnham a go just to get rid of Starmer. It will end in tears for them Burnham isn't the Messiah they think he is. It is quite possible Burnham could be the one that puts the final nails in the Labour coffin with his left wing ideas. Never a dull moment in politics nowadays.

Healey came across quite well. He wanted £28 billion apparently but said he could paper over the cracks with £18 billion. He was offered around £13 billion allegedly. Miliband refused to reduce net zero spending by 1% which would have been another £600 million. Maybe he should have sacked Miliband and kept Healey:)

Burnham the messiah on his way. Has he changed his mind about the Waspi women already? Won't be the only thing he changes his mind about compared to what he is saying to get elected and if he becomes pm. Labour voters keep falling for it though in my opinion.

Followed by the provisional full-year borrowing figure for the financial year ending March 2026 at £132.0 billion. Factoring in the pro-rata breakdown for the 23 months since the July 2024 election yields the structural borrowing total of roughly £170 billion.

£132 for a full 12 month period under Labour and only £38 billion for the other 11 months something not quite right there asi:)

£153 billion in 2022/23 so around £273 billion for the last 2 years of the tories compared to £260 billion plus for Labour so very similar. Am I missing something from the ONS figures?

Where did you get those figures from asi? According to the ONS government borrowing for 2025/26 was £129 billion slightly down from the previous year so for basically the 2 years of the labour government borrowing has been at least £260 billion plus not the £170 billion you intimated. I think your borrowing for the tories maybe a little high as well as according to the ONS the full estimate for 2023/24 was £120.7 billion. They don't correlate with the ONS figures.

Unfortunately it is what happens when people perceive and believe they are not being listened to and are being shut down. It is no surprise warning signs have been there for a while now.

If you look at what happened in Belfast they set up a diversion to distract the police and small groups then spread out and targeted HMOs. Phones not allowed to take pictures and record it the press blocked off. This spread the police out and were unable to respond by the time they arrived at the scenes the people had melted away. The Irish are well versed in these tactics. Expect England to learn from this.

Whilst immigrants in hotels were easy to guard now they are spread out in HMOs much more difficult unfortunately because of the horrendous crimes being caused on a daily basis now by immigrants legal or otherwise all get tarred with the same brush. The government need to get on top of immigration and immigrant crime or there will be future triggers which will cause more "demonstrations" and things will get worse. The country is divided and both sides of the political spectrum are creating that division.

Having real problems with the internet signal keeps dropping their is a fault on the line openreach are supposed to be coming out.

Going now asi good to talk to you as always good natured discussion we give a bit and take a bit from each other just as it should be. Enjoy the rest of your day:)

I said increased over the last 40 years asi so interest hasn't been waning and that includes the advent of televised football. You chose to cherry pick 1948 and where football peaked just after the war wonder why that was by 1952 it had dropped to todays levels and then continued to fall until 1970. What about prior to the war when it was 10 million less than today. Overall it has climbed back up to almost where it was in 1948 in terms of numbers so the same amount of people still attend so how has interest dropped if almost the same number are attending as 1948 which was the peak.

Now you can say per capita it has dropped but this isn't inflation on investments the same amount of interest is still there in terms of attendance plus the televised matches watched by millions over the season.

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.

Nowhere in that statement does it say anything about the last 40, 80 years or per capita or grass roots or how many village teams have packed in football just that fewer people are interested in it. Not sure how I am to surmise all of the above from that statement. However you then brought all the previous up about why you thought there was less interest.

I said I wasn't sure that was the case as attendances have been robust. I don't agree that the interest in football is in the decline you seem to think it is.

Also the advent of televised matches should have affected attendances significantly and yet it hasn't if you were to add in the number watching games on tv would that show even more interest in the game than you think?

As for participation per capita I would agree it is probably down however the overall numbers are up according to the FA. Some parts of the game are thriving some not so.

I have always been talking about attendances asi look back at my original post. You had to clarify yours.

Attendances have increased over the last 40 years and that part of the game is thriving and according to the FA so is the grass roots unless you don't believe the FA. Comparing it to 80 years ago is difficult as football wasn't on the tv then. I wonder if tv viewing figures are added in what the overall interest compared to your comment about declining interest.

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 you have added those statements since. Well attendances haven't declined for the last 40 years. Now you are saying it has declined per head of capita another statement change you keep changing them you will get it right eventually.

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

I don't agree asi I think you are wrong and what you say about supporters regarding supporting their team tells me you know very little about football and its supporters.

Your original statement was why did Wigan need a 25k stadium they got promoted to the premier league and had average gates around the 20k mark that is why they needed a 25k stadium. Wigan Warriors needed a more modern stadium as central Park was outdated so they also moved in 1 year after it was built. At the time it was being built Dave Whelan had ambitions to take Wigan into the premier league and was investing a lot of money into it. Which he achieved.

142 clubs is a pretty comprehensive study a few clubs missing here and there isn't going to make much difference. We aren't talking millions of supporters difference. Certainly not 20 million or so between the middle 80s and today.

You still doubling down on 6 billion across 16 cities asi. It was obvious he meant global engagement.

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 support is spread over each entire teams history. Look at the total of attendances of the game in the graph instead of focusing on one club as each club will have ups and downs in their history just as Wigan have.

I think he has misjudged this one 88 to be fair I didn't realise how popular grass roots football was. I think he is judging it on the demise of local pub and amateur teams which has fallen but soccer academies have taken up some of their place but the professional and semi professional game plus overall participation and attendances has increased particularly since the middle 80s. The World Cup is massive both financially and engagement wise seems to get bigger each time it is on although I will be interested in the actual attendances because of the extravagantly high pricing.

So overall thriving grass roots football and increasing attendances almost at all time highs as demonstrated hardly a sport in decline asi:)

The 16 cities reference is where it is being played asi not 6 billion in those cities.

https://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/nav/attnengtot.htm

Increased significantly over the last 40 years and almost at all time highs when there wasn't all seater stadiums so could pack more in.

n the last 40 years attendances have increased you will always get the odd club disappearing and another being formed.

Asi engaged also means watching it on the tv:)

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF GRASSROOTS FOOTBALL IN ENGLAND

Social return on investment (SROI)

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:)