Today my bunk got flooded by the torrential downpour ---- AGAIN. The first time we were having a long weekend and I didn't manage to see nature unleash its fury, that is until today. My poor bed was in the way of an almighty waterfall. The apparently concrete ceiling proved no defence against the waves and waves of attack by the rainwater. When I saw it, I could only respond in the simplest way I knew --- SIMI LAN JIAO? Somehow I felt glad that I am able to book out and sleep on my dry bed at home.
You know something? As cadets, we can just run off to kbkb to the instructors and you can almost confirm plus chop plus guarantee it will be fixed. Now with the heavy bar on our shoulders, we are expected to settle this kind of stuff by ourselves.
I think I can make it as a telemarketeer if I ever get kicked out of the teaching profession. Over the course of these few weeks I have made calls to random people requesting for this, enquiring about that. Think I have almost eliminated my innate fear of calling people I don't know....
Yeah our boss bringing us on a branch outing tomorrow! Woo hoo! Really do think that I have the best boss among all the PSOs and OCs that I could have been placed under. Just a bit of a shame that my personality doesn't really suit the job scope, but I am not complaining. Life has been pretty good so far...
Anyway just for my records...
From The Straits Times
May 25, 2006
REGULATION OF PAY TV INDUSTRY
MDA should give fuller picture
By Burton Ong
FOR THE STRAITS TIMES
DECISIONS issued by industry regulators responsible for promoting competition in specific sectors of Singapore's economy in response to complaints against dominant market players have never been particularly illuminating.
MDA should give fuller picture
Apart from short press statements outlining the substance of their final decisions, these regulators have not made public complete grounds for their rejection of allegations that market incumbents in the telecommunications and media industries have engaged in anti-competitive behaviour.
Neither have they disclosed the legal analysis which they have employed in each case to arrive at their final decisions, often citing reasons of 'commercial sensitivity', thereby making it difficult for the public to scrutinise the soundness of these decisions.
A recent example of this regulatory obscurity can be found in the Media Development Authority's (MDA) decision to allow the incumbent pay-TV service provider, a monopolist, to continue striking exclusive-content arrangements with cable television channels.
This was in response to a complaint from a potential new market entrant alleging that such practices made it more difficult for it to enter the pay-TV market because it would not have access to popular channels that customers would want to subscribe to.
Under the Media Market Conduct Code (MMCC), which sets out the legal framework for regulating competition in the various segments of the media industry, Paragraph 7.5.6 prohibits 'agreements with providers of Ancillary Media Services which substantially foreclose access to an input, or a channel of distribution, where this would prevent, restrict or distort competition in any Mass Media Services Market'.
Whether or not a foreclosure is 'substantial' or not depends on the percentage of the market foreclosed, the duration of the agreement, whether the agreement has a 'legitimate business purpose' other than foreclosing competitors' access to business inputs, and whether competitors have access to comparable inputs from other suppliers.
Conspicuously absent from this list of considerations is the degree of market dominance possessed by the media service provider engaged in such exclusivity arrangements with providers of these business inputs: A monopolist would be in a much stronger position to lock in upstream suppliers with exclusivity arrangements, and make it more difficult for would-be competitors to gain access to these inputs, compared to a market player with a lesser degree of market power.
Without publishing a full report of its decision, the MDA offered a number of less than convincing reasons for its unpopular decision to allow the incumbent to continue making exclusivity arrangements with various unnamed channels - though speculation has been rife that they include ESPN, the Discovery family of channels and HBO.
Firstly, would-be market entrants were said to be able to secure alternative content (other than these channels) for themselves. Secondly, the duration of these contractual exclusivity arrangements was said to be too short to act as effective barriers to market entry. Thirdly, the scope of these exclusivity arrangements was limited to the cable-TV platform, allowing other operators to gain access to these channels if they utilised other broadcast methods such as the Internet.
It is true that alternative content is available - there are probably hundreds of channels from around the world which other pay-TV operators could have access to, but the real question which needs to be answered is whether these other channels are real substitutes for the 'key content' in respect of which the incumbent has obtained exclusive broadcast rights. No cable-TV subscriber is likely to view a cable channel specialising in non-English arthouse films as a substitute for blockbuster-driven HBO. Neither is a cable channel focused on US college football and baseball games going to be treated as an effective substitute for ESPN.
An even more fundamental question appears to have been glossed over: Before determining whether or not the exclusivity arrangement substantially forecloses the market, how is the relevant market defined to begin with?
There are at least two possible markets which ought to have been investigated - those pay-TV customers who sign up primarily for single channels, and those who sign up for a suite of channels. Even though the incumbent pay-TV operator is a monopolist in both these markets, the substantiality of the foreclosure effects may differ in each case and warrant a more finely tuned response from the competition regulator.
Even if the duration of the exclusivity arrangements is viewed as relatively short, such that potential competitors have a theoretical opportunity to gain access to these channels when they expire, the reality is that the incumbent will have an enormous advantage when renewing their exclusive content with these channels because of its monopolist status and existing subscriber list, which comprises 40 per cent of all households in Singapore.
Exclusivity arrangements involving highly sought-after channels invariably require the pay-TV operator to fork out a premium which will almost always find its way, ultimately, into the cable-TV viewer's subscription bill.
Finally, the fact that newcomers may gain access to these channels by broadcasting them via the Internet or other new technologies does not mean very much if these emerging high-tech content distribution channels are not even in the same market as the established cable-TV market. The picture quality, stability and other product characteristics of the former may not be comparable to those possessed by the latter. The former is likely to have niche appeal only to technologically savvy individuals and not to average television viewers. If these two modes of content delivery are in separate and distinct markets, the emergence of the former does not in any way detract from the anti-competitiveness of exclusivity arrangements being practised in the latter.
In reaching its conclusion that exclusive content agreements in themselves will not prevent new entrants from entering the pay-TV market, but without releasing a full report on how it analysed the issues arising from its interpretation of Paragraph 7.5.6 of the MMCC, the MDA's decision is difficult to justify to the 453,000 cable-TV subscribers in Singapore.
As with some of its earlier decisions in relation to other sectors of the media industry, a shroud of mystery - and cynicism - will envelop this episode until the regulator changes its disclosure policies.
In the meantime, existing cable-TV customers will continue to be deprived of the alternative packages and pricing plans which the would-be competitor may have offered if it had entered the pay-TV market, while potential cable-TV customers unwilling to pay the high subscription fees currently charged by the incumbent monopolist will continue to remain on the sidelines.
The writer is a member of the law faculty at the National University of Singapore.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From The Straits Times
Singapore politics, from an economist's viewpoint
I REFER to the letter, 'Is politics all about pursuit of party interests?' by Mr Jason Phan Shiaw Hwa (ST, May 16). Mr Phan raised a long-debated issue: 'Is politics ultimately about the pursuit of party interests, with the interests of citizens being incidental?'
In the study of political science, it is generally assumed that formation of policies rests in the hands of elected officials and their appointees, and that these officials form policies to maximise votes and thus remain in office. The result is a bias in the political system towards non-political parties that have strong lobbying power.
As an economist, I have to agree with the above generic assumption to a large extent. History has proven so, and many conspiracy theories have since evolved, about how countries' ruling parties manipulated the economy to gain favour with the electorate. Empirical evidence has also demonstrated that the economic cycle has a strong correlation with the political business cycle. Governments can manipulate the economic cycle by engineering booms and recessions with the use of fiscal and monetary policies to seek favour with the electorate. That is why in many countries, it is not unusual to observe the political business cycle where rapid growth precedes elections, and recessions follow elections. In this way, through tactful economic management, the government can make the economy look good at the time of election.
However, in Singapore, this is not the case. Although critics claim Singapore is a de facto one-party state, to a large extent this has allowed the Government to prioritise long-term growth rather than be concerned with short-term economic boom to win elections. It is always easier and more convenient to manipulate myopic short-term growth using fiscal and monetary tools.
However, in Singapore, the Government practises prudence and adopts supply-side policies such as education, training, investment and economic infrastructure development. This is to increase productive capacity to ensure there is sustainable economic growth. We are always looking out for niche areas to develop in as well, as shown by the number of 'hubs' we are trying to establish, such as 'IT hub', 'life science hub' and 'education hub', so we can always stay ahead in the face of global competition.
That is why I believe the Government truly subscribes to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's principle that politics is 'not a business of just voting, or not voting. Politics has got to do with your life, your job, your home, your Medicare, your children's future'. This is possible because, in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's words, 'Singapore succeeded because it had a dominant PAP government which could think long term and run the country without being distracted by the opposition'.
In fact, our unique tripartite system, where there are strong ties between labour, management and the Government, is a key element of Singapore's success and an envy of many countries, but their governments cannot simply replicate it due to strong political competition there.
The flexi-wage system also defies the common economic notion that 'wages are rigid downwards', as we allow wages to be pegged to performance. Thus in times of recession, wages can be adjusted downwards without much resistance from the labour force, unlike many other developed countries with strong trade union presence. This helps to keep the economy competitive.
Although I was born post-independence, when Singapore experienced rapid economic growth under then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and his administration, I have never doubted Singapore's imperative need for political and internal stability, especially in a country which lacks natural resources such as land, water and petroleum and practises multiracialism.
As a small and open economy, we are highly susceptible to external shocks, as evidenced by the Asian financial crisis, 9/11 terror attacks, Sars, and more recently, the world-wide bird flu epidemic. Nonetheless, our strong and capable Government has time and time again steered us through these turbulent times, with speedy economic recovery. In fact, the World Trade Organisation praised us recently for our swift response to the Sars crisis, which allowed the global epidemic to be resolved in a relatively short time.
On the other hand, proponents of the opposition have called for more alternative voices in Parliament to keep a check on the Government. I beg to differ. Like every economist, I believe only with competition comes creation. The theory of contestable markets should be applied to politics as well. The essence of the theory is that what is crucial for consumers' welfare is not whether an industry is actually a monopoly or competitive, but whether there is a real threat of competition. This can actually bring about improvement to consumers' welfare.
The key term here is real 'threat of competition', that is, credibility of competition. As long as the ruling party cannot deter entry of opponents, the incumbent party can still be forced to discipline itself, even without the opponents actually entering the political scene. Thus, as long as the Government can continuously prove itself through sustainable good economic performance, it will still function well even without the opposition keeping a check on it.
Finally, my vision of an ideal political system is one where the ruling party and the opposition party both act sincerely in the best interest of the country. Only then will there be no wasteful political competition (as seen in many countries that supposedly practise democracy) that poses immense opportunity cost on our limited resources. At the moment, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have proven themselves to be worthy opposition in the parliament, and hopefully Ms Sylvia Lim will do so as well. Then my vision is not that far away.
Yan Yueling (Miss)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Time to take stock of housewives' economic worth
More for my own records...
From The Straits Times
May 20, 2006
Time to take stock of housewives' economic worth
Study shows value of home production last year was 8.4% of S'pore's GDP
By Euston Quah
For The Straits Times
MUCH of what goes on within households is unrecorded. One obvious example is household work and child rearing.
The amount and value of time and effort used to provide the day-to-day services of cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, child support and the myriad other chores that need to be done in any household are clearly not insignificant. It is time society took stock and recognised the worth and contributions of housewives.
A study I did more than 10 years ago found that the value of home production was some 5.4 per cent of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) in 1986. A subsequent study by one of my students at the National University of Singapore, Ms Ong Qiyan, showed that home production last year had risen to 8.4 per cent.
This value, while lower than estimates for countries such as the United States and Britain - about 30 per cent of GDP - is however not insignificant in absolute terms, amounting to about $4 billion.
Furthermore, the Singapore estimates exclude work done by paid domestic maids which is a feature not prevalent in other countries. That portion of home production done by domestic maids is already captured by a country's GDP.
If one adds this to work done by unpaid housewives, the estimates will be along the same magnitude as those in North America and Europe.
The original and continuing impetus for valuing housework stems from the observation that estimates of total production of goods and services in a country neglect to take into account the unpaid and significant amount of production that occurs in the home.
Diligent recording of activities in households have shown that housewives contribute more than 80 per cent of total housework time.
It is often argued as such that housewives, by providing services to their homes, are engaged in productive activities no different from any other market occupation. Thus, the services provided by them warrant inclusion with other components of GDP.
As early as 1898, Alfred Marshall, a pioneering giant in economics, observed that 'a woman who makes her own clothes, or a man who digs his own garden or repairs his own house, is earning income just as would the dressmaker, gardener, or carpenter who might be hired to do the work'.
Another celebrated economist, Arthur Pigou, raised what has become a well-known paradox in national income accounting, that 'the services rendered by women enter into the dividend when they are rendered in exchange for wages, whether in factory or in the home, but do not enter into it when they are rendered by mothers and wives gratuitously to their own families. Thus, if a man marries his housekeeper or his cook, the national dividend is diminished'.
In principle, most economists recognise that housework has value in the same way as market work, but point out the difficulties in estimating such a value, and with the lack of information on intra-household activities they are prepared to exclude it from the accounts altogether.
The last few decades, however, saw increasing criticisms of the methods of national income accounting. These criticisms centre on three areas of contention: inadequate measurement and erroneous designation of some national income components, incorrect use of GDP measurements, and omission of non-market goods and services.
Today, the possibility of constructing a set of household accounts as part of an overall national income accounting system has become more feasible, given the improvements made in data availability and structural changes in most economies.
Housework has become more commercialised with easy access to maids - at least in Singapore and certain other parts of Asia. This, with the spread of commercial launderettes, daycare centres, and home-cooked-meal caterers have all allowed for more empirical data to be collected.
The need for the measurement and valuation of housework lies not only in a desire to provide a better estimate of the total economic production for an economy, but also in providing a better basis for growth calculations and for international comparisons of national income.
This, in fact, was shown by another student of mine, Mr Lim Sze How, now an economist with DBS, that over the past three decades, Singapore's growth rate was cushioned by household production activities in periods of reduced growth.
High GDP growth rates may be misleading as this may come from a diminishing household economy. This is because the labour force participation rate of women has been increasing over time, and with increasing commercialisation of housework activities, it is possible that the total production of goods and services over time may not have changed that much.
Similarly, in periods of economic downturn, falling growth rates may not be indicative of the total production of goods and services because women may have returned to their households and now generate increased home production.
High or low growth rates as reflected in a country's GDP may be inaccurate as they ignore changes in the household economy. To the extent that home production is not measured in conventional income accounts and to the degree that the household output omitted changes over time, then both the quantity and total output are mis-measured.
While valuing housewives' work is a useful exercise, by no means does it need to be fully incorporated into the GDP estimates. A more meaningful way might be to have a separate reporting of both GDP and home production.
Research is needed to determine how home production estimates can be derived. There already exists a number of methods proposed by economists. These might be refined for Singapore.
The writer, an environmental economist, is head of the economics department at Nanyang Technological University.
From The Straits Times
May 20, 2006
Time to take stock of housewives' economic worth
Study shows value of home production last year was 8.4% of S'pore's GDP
By Euston Quah
For The Straits Times
MUCH of what goes on within households is unrecorded. One obvious example is household work and child rearing.
The amount and value of time and effort used to provide the day-to-day services of cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, child support and the myriad other chores that need to be done in any household are clearly not insignificant. It is time society took stock and recognised the worth and contributions of housewives.
A study I did more than 10 years ago found that the value of home production was some 5.4 per cent of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) in 1986. A subsequent study by one of my students at the National University of Singapore, Ms Ong Qiyan, showed that home production last year had risen to 8.4 per cent.
This value, while lower than estimates for countries such as the United States and Britain - about 30 per cent of GDP - is however not insignificant in absolute terms, amounting to about $4 billion.
Furthermore, the Singapore estimates exclude work done by paid domestic maids which is a feature not prevalent in other countries. That portion of home production done by domestic maids is already captured by a country's GDP.
If one adds this to work done by unpaid housewives, the estimates will be along the same magnitude as those in North America and Europe.
The original and continuing impetus for valuing housework stems from the observation that estimates of total production of goods and services in a country neglect to take into account the unpaid and significant amount of production that occurs in the home.
Diligent recording of activities in households have shown that housewives contribute more than 80 per cent of total housework time.
It is often argued as such that housewives, by providing services to their homes, are engaged in productive activities no different from any other market occupation. Thus, the services provided by them warrant inclusion with other components of GDP.
As early as 1898, Alfred Marshall, a pioneering giant in economics, observed that 'a woman who makes her own clothes, or a man who digs his own garden or repairs his own house, is earning income just as would the dressmaker, gardener, or carpenter who might be hired to do the work'.
Another celebrated economist, Arthur Pigou, raised what has become a well-known paradox in national income accounting, that 'the services rendered by women enter into the dividend when they are rendered in exchange for wages, whether in factory or in the home, but do not enter into it when they are rendered by mothers and wives gratuitously to their own families. Thus, if a man marries his housekeeper or his cook, the national dividend is diminished'.
In principle, most economists recognise that housework has value in the same way as market work, but point out the difficulties in estimating such a value, and with the lack of information on intra-household activities they are prepared to exclude it from the accounts altogether.
The last few decades, however, saw increasing criticisms of the methods of national income accounting. These criticisms centre on three areas of contention: inadequate measurement and erroneous designation of some national income components, incorrect use of GDP measurements, and omission of non-market goods and services.
Today, the possibility of constructing a set of household accounts as part of an overall national income accounting system has become more feasible, given the improvements made in data availability and structural changes in most economies.
Housework has become more commercialised with easy access to maids - at least in Singapore and certain other parts of Asia. This, with the spread of commercial launderettes, daycare centres, and home-cooked-meal caterers have all allowed for more empirical data to be collected.
The need for the measurement and valuation of housework lies not only in a desire to provide a better estimate of the total economic production for an economy, but also in providing a better basis for growth calculations and for international comparisons of national income.
This, in fact, was shown by another student of mine, Mr Lim Sze How, now an economist with DBS, that over the past three decades, Singapore's growth rate was cushioned by household production activities in periods of reduced growth.
High GDP growth rates may be misleading as this may come from a diminishing household economy. This is because the labour force participation rate of women has been increasing over time, and with increasing commercialisation of housework activities, it is possible that the total production of goods and services over time may not have changed that much.
Similarly, in periods of economic downturn, falling growth rates may not be indicative of the total production of goods and services because women may have returned to their households and now generate increased home production.
High or low growth rates as reflected in a country's GDP may be inaccurate as they ignore changes in the household economy. To the extent that home production is not measured in conventional income accounts and to the degree that the household output omitted changes over time, then both the quantity and total output are mis-measured.
While valuing housewives' work is a useful exercise, by no means does it need to be fully incorporated into the GDP estimates. A more meaningful way might be to have a separate reporting of both GDP and home production.
Research is needed to determine how home production estimates can be derived. There already exists a number of methods proposed by economists. These might be refined for Singapore.
The writer, an environmental economist, is head of the economics department at Nanyang Technological University.
Friday, May 19, 2006
The saga that is Ike
Resurrected my blog before I had eliminated all my past posts just for the letter below.
From The Straits Times
May 19, 2006
Consider NS deferment for those with exceptional family burdens
When I was serving my full-time national service a decade ago, I encountered many heart-wrenching personal accounts from lower-income Singaporeans about the serious disruptions that NS had caused to their families.
At the age of 17 or 18, many of them had to shoulder exceptional family responsibilities. Some had to care for aged or disabled parents while others were sole breadwinners.
Some of my friends were already young fathers at the time of enlistment.
Even though the Singapore Armed Forces was generally flexible in giving them nights-off or stay-out privileges to care for their families, the low pay of $250 a month and the time-consuming demands of training were nevertheless huge problems to these people.
If deferment is to be granted, it is these ordinary people with extraordinary burdens who should be considered instead of the potential careers of teenage prodigies like violinist Ike See.
To me, rather than an outstanding Singaporean on the world stage, it is the countless batches of NSmen at home who, in spite of the exceptional demands of their families, served their duties honourably that make Singapore a place worth fighting for.
Liew Kai Khiun, London
------------------------------------------------------
So far all the letters to the Forum had been those pleading for flexibility to allow Ike See to complete his music education before returning to Singapore to serve his NS. I guess for one who was able to disrupt his NS for his studies, I don't have much of a moral ground to stand on but I do feel that the letter above provides a breath of fresh air. While I do not support the person's stand of asking for deferment because of family circumstances etc, it does bring out the fact that NS is a very big sacrifice and a lot of people have plenty of valid reasons to ask for deferment, disruption whatever. But yet those which see the print of media are always those at the top. Those who has this talent or that competition which is once in a lifetime blah blah and if they miss it they might never have a chance again. What about the guy who is his sick mum's sole caregiver? A mother who is gone will never come back too you know?
So exactly what is my point? I also don't know. I do see the point in allowing Ike See to finish his music education first. But yet sometimes a one size fits all approach is taken PRECISELY because there are too many unique circumstances and where do you draw the line between yes and no? It's a Pandora's Box. And are you being fair to those at the bottom of the social strata? The best and brightest are allowed to go and benefit themselves first but those at the bottom can't even defer to save their family? (Just don't tell me about me being a government scholar was able to disrupt blah blah. The government has its reasons for doing so which I shall not write down here lest I need to delete my old posts again...lol)
From The Straits Times
May 19, 2006
Consider NS deferment for those with exceptional family burdens
When I was serving my full-time national service a decade ago, I encountered many heart-wrenching personal accounts from lower-income Singaporeans about the serious disruptions that NS had caused to their families.
At the age of 17 or 18, many of them had to shoulder exceptional family responsibilities. Some had to care for aged or disabled parents while others were sole breadwinners.
Some of my friends were already young fathers at the time of enlistment.
Even though the Singapore Armed Forces was generally flexible in giving them nights-off or stay-out privileges to care for their families, the low pay of $250 a month and the time-consuming demands of training were nevertheless huge problems to these people.
If deferment is to be granted, it is these ordinary people with extraordinary burdens who should be considered instead of the potential careers of teenage prodigies like violinist Ike See.
To me, rather than an outstanding Singaporean on the world stage, it is the countless batches of NSmen at home who, in spite of the exceptional demands of their families, served their duties honourably that make Singapore a place worth fighting for.
Liew Kai Khiun, London
------------------------------------------------------
So far all the letters to the Forum had been those pleading for flexibility to allow Ike See to complete his music education before returning to Singapore to serve his NS. I guess for one who was able to disrupt his NS for his studies, I don't have much of a moral ground to stand on but I do feel that the letter above provides a breath of fresh air. While I do not support the person's stand of asking for deferment because of family circumstances etc, it does bring out the fact that NS is a very big sacrifice and a lot of people have plenty of valid reasons to ask for deferment, disruption whatever. But yet those which see the print of media are always those at the top. Those who has this talent or that competition which is once in a lifetime blah blah and if they miss it they might never have a chance again. What about the guy who is his sick mum's sole caregiver? A mother who is gone will never come back too you know?
So exactly what is my point? I also don't know. I do see the point in allowing Ike See to finish his music education first. But yet sometimes a one size fits all approach is taken PRECISELY because there are too many unique circumstances and where do you draw the line between yes and no? It's a Pandora's Box. And are you being fair to those at the bottom of the social strata? The best and brightest are allowed to go and benefit themselves first but those at the bottom can't even defer to save their family? (Just don't tell me about me being a government scholar was able to disrupt blah blah. The government has its reasons for doing so which I shall not write down here lest I need to delete my old posts again...lol)
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Payback Time...
Manchester United: Fans start to pay back their debt to Glazer
Antony Melvin
From Square Football:
When the Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005 the fans protested loud and at length about the implications. But many football fans from other clubs just could not see what the problem was – new owner, new money, where’s the beef?
But news of the new double-digit ticket price rises in most areas of the ground is a pointer for the way things will go.
The majority of the 46,000 Manchester United season ticket holders sit in £30 seats. These fans would probably have hoped for an inflationary £1 per match rise, but probably expected another £2 or £3 rise (in line with last season's jump) - and they will have been dismayed at a £5 hike. £5 represents a staggering 17% rise.
There is little point in the United Finance Director, Nick Humby, stating that the rise only takes United into the top half of the table in cost terms. Most of the clubs above are based in London and have entirely different costs, but in any event United will now be charging somewhere equivalent to Chelsea for the vast majority of fans.
United compare their prices favourably to Chelsea and Spurs (the most expensive clubs to watch), suggesting that they cost double. But Chelsea have already printed their ticket price freeze for next season, and although their top price ticket (West Upper) equates to £60.50 per match, this is the only area of the ground (executive boxes notwithstanding) that will cost more than £45. The vast majority of fans will be paying £40 - £45. Which with a nominal London weighting is largely equivalent to the mode price at Old Trafford of £35.
The large price increase in 2004/5 (around 10%) was sold on the basis that it would stop any takeover – by reducing revenue raising opportunities for any buyer. Obviously this was an incorrect assumption. The majority of fans at Old Trafford will pay 25% more for 2006/7 than for 2004/5.
In simple terms the Glazers’ need to raise revenues by £30m - £35m per season within three seasons – or the debt associated with the takeover will start to get out of hand. If all this extra revenue is allocated to debt repayment it will at least allow the club to compete with clubs with similar transfer budgets like Newcastle, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal. Chelsea are obviously a different matter.
This price rise should increase matchday revenues by £8m, with the extra 9,000 capacity available per match next season bringing in a similar amount. Add on £5m per season for the change of shirt sponsors from Vodafone to AIG, and a couple of million from other sponorship, retailing and high value added packages and United have quickly added £23m a season.
Which in business terms is pretty special – but not yet enough.
If selling the ground or its name are ruled out then the only way for the sums to work is to raise ticket prices or to cut transfer expenditure.
The club has made no promises on ticket prices and as a result it would appear that it will expect the fans to pick up the cost of funding the continuing shortfall in debt cover. The average ticket price will probably rise to £40 in 2007/8, £45 in 2008/9 and £50 in 2009/10 to take the average price to the targeted £900 plus per person (the figure leaked during the aggressive takeover). £50 seats will adequately realign Manchester United’s finances and allow the fans to pay off the Glazers’ takeover debt.
Already this season there has been the unusual sight of thousands of tickets being available on several matchdays – tickets for the league match this Friday are again freely available. With the increase in capacity and ticket prices the unusual sight of empty seats at Old Trafford will be a regular feature from next season on.
Perhaps you believe the fallacy that fans are sheep who will keep paying and paying? Well the facts are clear. Manchester United fans are struggling to pay for their season tickets now – as a result the matches that aren’t covered by the season ticket, the cup matches, are already being undersubscribed – only the Villarreal match was close to being a sell-out.
League matches average attendance 2005/6: 68,217 (after 16 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2005/6: 56,713 (7 matches)
League matches average attendance 2004/5: 67,871 (19 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2004/5: 64,359 (9 matches)
So there were over 70,000 unsold cup seats in 2005/6 compared to just 30,000 seats (from two more games) unsold the season before. Obviously the increase in ticket prices covered the empty seats but factor in the lost programme, food and merchandise sales and perhaps the price rises are not as lucrative as they first appear.
If the trend continues then there will be 100,000 – 150,000 empty seats for cup matches at Old Trafford next season – unless United are knocked out very early or get a series of plum ties.
As the new owners seek to squeeze fans to pay for their debts there will be a fine balancing act to play. Either the Glazers’ could announce that future price rises might be pegged at a reasonable level – say 5% - or the fans will vote with their feet. And given the abject lack of comment from the Glazers to date it seems pointless waiting for them to say anything positive.
The cup matches attendances were sliding before this rise and the next to go will be season ticket holders who will be priced out in their thousands if the cost continues to rise by £100 per season.
Indeed as more matches fail to sell out perhaps fans will abandon the season ticket in the hope of saving money by going to a handful of high profile games. From there it is a short step to buying a Sky Sports subscription and a comfy chair.
One of best boasts of United fans has always been that they are the best supported club in England – if the Glazers take away even that will anyone still think that the takeover meant business as usual? Does anyone think that the Glazers would rather have a full stadium of people paying £30 a game or one that is half empty, with the disruptive plebs priced out and those that are left paying £100 per seat?
Add up the numbers – which makes more money?
Antony Melvin
10 April 2006
Antony Melvin
From Square Football:
When the Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005 the fans protested loud and at length about the implications. But many football fans from other clubs just could not see what the problem was – new owner, new money, where’s the beef?
But news of the new double-digit ticket price rises in most areas of the ground is a pointer for the way things will go.
The majority of the 46,000 Manchester United season ticket holders sit in £30 seats. These fans would probably have hoped for an inflationary £1 per match rise, but probably expected another £2 or £3 rise (in line with last season's jump) - and they will have been dismayed at a £5 hike. £5 represents a staggering 17% rise.
There is little point in the United Finance Director, Nick Humby, stating that the rise only takes United into the top half of the table in cost terms. Most of the clubs above are based in London and have entirely different costs, but in any event United will now be charging somewhere equivalent to Chelsea for the vast majority of fans.
United compare their prices favourably to Chelsea and Spurs (the most expensive clubs to watch), suggesting that they cost double. But Chelsea have already printed their ticket price freeze for next season, and although their top price ticket (West Upper) equates to £60.50 per match, this is the only area of the ground (executive boxes notwithstanding) that will cost more than £45. The vast majority of fans will be paying £40 - £45. Which with a nominal London weighting is largely equivalent to the mode price at Old Trafford of £35.
The large price increase in 2004/5 (around 10%) was sold on the basis that it would stop any takeover – by reducing revenue raising opportunities for any buyer. Obviously this was an incorrect assumption. The majority of fans at Old Trafford will pay 25% more for 2006/7 than for 2004/5.
In simple terms the Glazers’ need to raise revenues by £30m - £35m per season within three seasons – or the debt associated with the takeover will start to get out of hand. If all this extra revenue is allocated to debt repayment it will at least allow the club to compete with clubs with similar transfer budgets like Newcastle, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal. Chelsea are obviously a different matter.
This price rise should increase matchday revenues by £8m, with the extra 9,000 capacity available per match next season bringing in a similar amount. Add on £5m per season for the change of shirt sponsors from Vodafone to AIG, and a couple of million from other sponorship, retailing and high value added packages and United have quickly added £23m a season.
Which in business terms is pretty special – but not yet enough.
If selling the ground or its name are ruled out then the only way for the sums to work is to raise ticket prices or to cut transfer expenditure.
The club has made no promises on ticket prices and as a result it would appear that it will expect the fans to pick up the cost of funding the continuing shortfall in debt cover. The average ticket price will probably rise to £40 in 2007/8, £45 in 2008/9 and £50 in 2009/10 to take the average price to the targeted £900 plus per person (the figure leaked during the aggressive takeover). £50 seats will adequately realign Manchester United’s finances and allow the fans to pay off the Glazers’ takeover debt.
Already this season there has been the unusual sight of thousands of tickets being available on several matchdays – tickets for the league match this Friday are again freely available. With the increase in capacity and ticket prices the unusual sight of empty seats at Old Trafford will be a regular feature from next season on.
Perhaps you believe the fallacy that fans are sheep who will keep paying and paying? Well the facts are clear. Manchester United fans are struggling to pay for their season tickets now – as a result the matches that aren’t covered by the season ticket, the cup matches, are already being undersubscribed – only the Villarreal match was close to being a sell-out.
League matches average attendance 2005/6: 68,217 (after 16 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2005/6: 56,713 (7 matches)
League matches average attendance 2004/5: 67,871 (19 matches)
Cup matches average attendance 2004/5: 64,359 (9 matches)
So there were over 70,000 unsold cup seats in 2005/6 compared to just 30,000 seats (from two more games) unsold the season before. Obviously the increase in ticket prices covered the empty seats but factor in the lost programme, food and merchandise sales and perhaps the price rises are not as lucrative as they first appear.
If the trend continues then there will be 100,000 – 150,000 empty seats for cup matches at Old Trafford next season – unless United are knocked out very early or get a series of plum ties.
As the new owners seek to squeeze fans to pay for their debts there will be a fine balancing act to play. Either the Glazers’ could announce that future price rises might be pegged at a reasonable level – say 5% - or the fans will vote with their feet. And given the abject lack of comment from the Glazers to date it seems pointless waiting for them to say anything positive.
The cup matches attendances were sliding before this rise and the next to go will be season ticket holders who will be priced out in their thousands if the cost continues to rise by £100 per season.
Indeed as more matches fail to sell out perhaps fans will abandon the season ticket in the hope of saving money by going to a handful of high profile games. From there it is a short step to buying a Sky Sports subscription and a comfy chair.
One of best boasts of United fans has always been that they are the best supported club in England – if the Glazers take away even that will anyone still think that the takeover meant business as usual? Does anyone think that the Glazers would rather have a full stadium of people paying £30 a game or one that is half empty, with the disruptive plebs priced out and those that are left paying £100 per seat?
Add up the numbers – which makes more money?
Antony Melvin
10 April 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Pride, honour and integrity?
Rugby boy who bit opponent: Teach forbearance and forgiveness. Don't send wrong signal
I feel compelled to shed some truth on the incident involving an ACS rugby player who was alleged to have bitten his opponent during a scrum. There was no witness in the incident.
The ACS (I) rugby players were made to be seen as bullies and aggressors using rough tactics like kicking and biting to win the match. The truth is, they had already won that match by a huge margin and secured a place in the semi-final.
It doesn't take grey matter to know that no ACS player would do anything foolish to jeopardise his chances of playing in the semi- and final (the two most important matches of his life).
Not unless he was forced into self-defence by an onslaught of head-butting attacks from the opponent (which SJI denies). Such duress can be a mitigating circumstance.
In the same match, some ACS players were also injured. One suffered a 4cm cut on the right upper cheek, another was bitten on the stomach (photos were taken). Are they also not the aggrieved?
Yet, ACS is magnanimous in not pursuing the matter, least of all incriminating their "aggressors". My son's nose was broken in one such match last year and it required an operation. In another match, a finger was fractured while cuts and bruises were par for the course. The list goes on.
But not once did we think of charging anyone. And who is to say that they were just accidents and not deliberate?
The important lesson is to teach our children forbearance, forgiveness and not to be vindictive.
For decades, ACS (I) has been playing against much bigger Secondary 5 boys from many schools and it had never protested. Why are there now so much murmurs about ACS (I) fielding a couple of year-five boys for the first time?
With the much-anticipated final days away, it is very unnerving and demoralising for the ACS team to be subjected to the ordeal of having two of its key players suspended and unwarranted media attention which leaves the public questioning its sportsmanship and integrity.
At this juncture, it is paramount that the players not only be physically fit but also psychologically and emotionally strong.
Let it be known that in ACS, our boys are taught to put honour before glory. An honourable and true sportsman would admit and repent for a mistake whereas a coward and loser denies it.
That, precisely, is what the boy who bit his opponent did. He did not deny anything. He could have, as there were no witnesses.
It is so tempting for a vulnerable teenager to vehemently deny an allegation that has no substantial incriminating evidence and there's a good chance of getting away scot-free.
But it takes courage and humility to admit and apologise. A mistake has been made. Let us extend grace to allow our children to learn the right morals from it.
Or are we sending them the wrong signal: that if you have committed an offence, deny it and you may get away with it. Admit it and the penalty is severe.
Which is easier? This boy went before the panel knowing the consequences, yet he chose integrity above all. The boy is extremely remorseful. He has learnt his lesson at a high cost.
So let's not work at destroying him further by tearing his self-worth. Can our unforgiving society show mercy and compassion to a 15-year-old school boy?
Let those who have never committed a deliberate foul or rough tackle cast the first stone.
Lim Siew Whye (Ms)
-------------------------------------------------
As an officer, the words in bold really do occupy our thoughts constantly. To do the right thing and potentially get abused/punished for it? Or to do the easy thing and get away with it?
Integrity, 可以当饭吃吗？
I feel compelled to shed some truth on the incident involving an ACS rugby player who was alleged to have bitten his opponent during a scrum. There was no witness in the incident.
The ACS (I) rugby players were made to be seen as bullies and aggressors using rough tactics like kicking and biting to win the match. The truth is, they had already won that match by a huge margin and secured a place in the semi-final.
It doesn't take grey matter to know that no ACS player would do anything foolish to jeopardise his chances of playing in the semi- and final (the two most important matches of his life).
Not unless he was forced into self-defence by an onslaught of head-butting attacks from the opponent (which SJI denies). Such duress can be a mitigating circumstance.
In the same match, some ACS players were also injured. One suffered a 4cm cut on the right upper cheek, another was bitten on the stomach (photos were taken). Are they also not the aggrieved?
Yet, ACS is magnanimous in not pursuing the matter, least of all incriminating their "aggressors". My son's nose was broken in one such match last year and it required an operation. In another match, a finger was fractured while cuts and bruises were par for the course. The list goes on.
But not once did we think of charging anyone. And who is to say that they were just accidents and not deliberate?
The important lesson is to teach our children forbearance, forgiveness and not to be vindictive.
For decades, ACS (I) has been playing against much bigger Secondary 5 boys from many schools and it had never protested. Why are there now so much murmurs about ACS (I) fielding a couple of year-five boys for the first time?
With the much-anticipated final days away, it is very unnerving and demoralising for the ACS team to be subjected to the ordeal of having two of its key players suspended and unwarranted media attention which leaves the public questioning its sportsmanship and integrity.
At this juncture, it is paramount that the players not only be physically fit but also psychologically and emotionally strong.
Let it be known that in ACS, our boys are taught to put honour before glory. An honourable and true sportsman would admit and repent for a mistake whereas a coward and loser denies it.
That, precisely, is what the boy who bit his opponent did. He did not deny anything. He could have, as there were no witnesses.
It is so tempting for a vulnerable teenager to vehemently deny an allegation that has no substantial incriminating evidence and there's a good chance of getting away scot-free.
But it takes courage and humility to admit and apologise. A mistake has been made. Let us extend grace to allow our children to learn the right morals from it.
Or are we sending them the wrong signal: that if you have committed an offence, deny it and you may get away with it. Admit it and the penalty is severe.
Which is easier? This boy went before the panel knowing the consequences, yet he chose integrity above all. The boy is extremely remorseful. He has learnt his lesson at a high cost.
So let's not work at destroying him further by tearing his self-worth. Can our unforgiving society show mercy and compassion to a 15-year-old school boy?
Let those who have never committed a deliberate foul or rough tackle cast the first stone.
Lim Siew Whye (Ms)
-------------------------------------------------
As an officer, the words in bold really do occupy our thoughts constantly. To do the right thing and potentially get abused/punished for it? Or to do the easy thing and get away with it?
Integrity, 可以当饭吃吗？
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Uneasy colours
Aarghhh, not sure why I am blogging when I should be studying. But this matter had been bothering me for quite sometime and I think I should write something down in case I forget all about it after exams.
I read some letters in the Forum section of Straits Times Interactive and came across some letters which condemned a firm responsible for security of a condominium for apparently refusing to hire Indian security guards. The firm gave "past bad experiences" as the reason and some readers were unhappy about it. I think one of them called for some equal rights and opportunities act thing (not very good at this kind of jargon lah), citing some newspaper adverts being racists by saying "applicants should know Mandarin and English" blah blah that kind of conditions.
Firstly I think some perspective is needed. When firms give that kind of conditions, granted they may be discriminating, but others might have perfectly sound reasons for putting in those clauses. For example, if my business has a lot to do with China, then of course I am going to get someone who can speak Mandarin. If I have business in India, of course I will try to find someone who can speak one of the many languages found in India. That is just pure business logic, and might not be discriminatory. To just cite such clauses out of context adds unnecessary racial tension in my opinion.
Secondly, equal opportunities blah blah that kind of stuff is good. But we must be careful not to go down the slippery road of positive discrimination.
Vieira's comments on racism
The key line is at the end of the article:
'The English have been fighting against racism for 20 years - in all departments. When I switch on my TV in England I see black journalists presenting the afternoon or evening news. In France I do not.'
I do not know anything about the situation in France and for all I know it really maybe racism at work. But what I am worried about is that people might start to campaign for positive discrimination, i.e. giving a person something simply because he is a minority, not because of merit. Last year on the train to Lisbon for Euro 2004, an ang moh English fan told me that if I were to join the England fans' club, I would be certain to get a huge fraction of tickets, simply because I am a Chinese and the FA practises positive discrimination (he said it to me in hushed tones, not sure why also, not very PC to say it perhaps?). That is something I am worried about. The last thing I want if I am a minority is to be given something because I AM a minority, and not because I deserve it on merit. Anti racism means race does not matter right? Then why should I be given something BECAUSE I am a minority? Isn't that discrimination in itself? And I think it might be even more degrading than normal racism, giving others the impression that minorities need special help to succeed.
Equal opportunities yes, positive discrimination NO.
The last thing I am concerned about is the undertone of the various letters to the forum. I think 1 of the letters to the forum today which touched on racism ended off with something to the effect of "I hope next time when India becomes an economic power Singaporeans won't be punished for their racist attitudes towards Indians now...or take their money elsewhere and not come to Singapore" blah blah.
Example:
With economic growth gathering pace in the Indian sub-continent, the day may yet come when some of the high-rollers expected to create jobs for Singaporeans in our shining integrated resorts are from the very country whose people some here now treat in such cavalier fashion.
I just hope they don't vote with their wallets and simply go elsewhere to spend their hard-earned money.
Incidentally the writer is an Indian. Somehow the inclusion of those kinds of statements dilutes the whole message. We should not be racist not because India is going to be an economic super power next time isn't it? If so then why put in statements of those kind? And the fact that the writers are Indians themselves writing those kind of statements do not reflect very well on the writers themselves. It feels like me saying we should kow tow to mainland Chinese because China is going to be an economic superpower next time, i.e. my people are going to be great next time, watch out! Even if they do not mean it, those statements dilute the important message of stamping out racism because it gives the impression that the minorities themselves are racist in the first place.
Sometimes you really wonder, who are the real racists? In my opinion, there is no difference between a white man who beats up a black guy because he is black, and the black guy who runs off crying "racism" everytime when he does not get something.
I read some letters in the Forum section of Straits Times Interactive and came across some letters which condemned a firm responsible for security of a condominium for apparently refusing to hire Indian security guards. The firm gave "past bad experiences" as the reason and some readers were unhappy about it. I think one of them called for some equal rights and opportunities act thing (not very good at this kind of jargon lah), citing some newspaper adverts being racists by saying "applicants should know Mandarin and English" blah blah that kind of conditions.
Firstly I think some perspective is needed. When firms give that kind of conditions, granted they may be discriminating, but others might have perfectly sound reasons for putting in those clauses. For example, if my business has a lot to do with China, then of course I am going to get someone who can speak Mandarin. If I have business in India, of course I will try to find someone who can speak one of the many languages found in India. That is just pure business logic, and might not be discriminatory. To just cite such clauses out of context adds unnecessary racial tension in my opinion.
Secondly, equal opportunities blah blah that kind of stuff is good. But we must be careful not to go down the slippery road of positive discrimination.
Vieira's comments on racism
The key line is at the end of the article:
'The English have been fighting against racism for 20 years - in all departments. When I switch on my TV in England I see black journalists presenting the afternoon or evening news. In France I do not.'
I do not know anything about the situation in France and for all I know it really maybe racism at work. But what I am worried about is that people might start to campaign for positive discrimination, i.e. giving a person something simply because he is a minority, not because of merit. Last year on the train to Lisbon for Euro 2004, an ang moh English fan told me that if I were to join the England fans' club, I would be certain to get a huge fraction of tickets, simply because I am a Chinese and the FA practises positive discrimination (he said it to me in hushed tones, not sure why also, not very PC to say it perhaps?). That is something I am worried about. The last thing I want if I am a minority is to be given something because I AM a minority, and not because I deserve it on merit. Anti racism means race does not matter right? Then why should I be given something BECAUSE I am a minority? Isn't that discrimination in itself? And I think it might be even more degrading than normal racism, giving others the impression that minorities need special help to succeed.
Equal opportunities yes, positive discrimination NO.
The last thing I am concerned about is the undertone of the various letters to the forum. I think 1 of the letters to the forum today which touched on racism ended off with something to the effect of "I hope next time when India becomes an economic power Singaporeans won't be punished for their racist attitudes towards Indians now...or take their money elsewhere and not come to Singapore" blah blah.
Example:
With economic growth gathering pace in the Indian sub-continent, the day may yet come when some of the high-rollers expected to create jobs for Singaporeans in our shining integrated resorts are from the very country whose people some here now treat in such cavalier fashion.
I just hope they don't vote with their wallets and simply go elsewhere to spend their hard-earned money.
Incidentally the writer is an Indian. Somehow the inclusion of those kinds of statements dilutes the whole message. We should not be racist not because India is going to be an economic super power next time isn't it? If so then why put in statements of those kind? And the fact that the writers are Indians themselves writing those kind of statements do not reflect very well on the writers themselves. It feels like me saying we should kow tow to mainland Chinese because China is going to be an economic superpower next time, i.e. my people are going to be great next time, watch out! Even if they do not mean it, those statements dilute the important message of stamping out racism because it gives the impression that the minorities themselves are racist in the first place.
Sometimes you really wonder, who are the real racists? In my opinion, there is no difference between a white man who beats up a black guy because he is black, and the black guy who runs off crying "racism" everytime when he does not get something.
Royal Mail reply
Dear Mr Toh,
Thank you for your enquiry about a missing International Signed For letter, reference number blah blah blah, sent to: Singapore
I have checked our records and it would appear that your letter went astray before being despatched from the United Kingdom. I can assure you we are most concerned when any loss occurs and I have therefore passed the details of this incident to our security people. They use this type of information to minimise instances of loss in our system.
In the circumstances, I am now in a position to settle your claim for compensation and therefore enclose a cheque for 7.05 pounds, which is a refund of the postage fee you paid, for a service we were unable to provide on this occasion.
I hope you will accept this along with my apologies for the concern and inconvenience you have been caused. If we can be of anymore help, please contact us again.
------------------------------------------------
Kan ni na be chao jibye, what the fuck do you mean by my letter went astray? Tsk tsk, naughty letter, why you run about? Simi lan jiao? Caused me so much trouble that day and make me cannot revise in peace...
Still I guess I should be thankful that the package got sent in the end. It could have been worse, it could still be lying in some red Royal Mail truck. And the postage turned out to be free in the end.
Moral of the story: If got precious items to send, don't use Royal Mail. Especially stuff that cannot be bought like what you handmade for example. Grrrrr...
Thank you for your enquiry about a missing International Signed For letter, reference number blah blah blah, sent to: Singapore
I have checked our records and it would appear that your letter went astray before being despatched from the United Kingdom. I can assure you we are most concerned when any loss occurs and I have therefore passed the details of this incident to our security people. They use this type of information to minimise instances of loss in our system.
In the circumstances, I am now in a position to settle your claim for compensation and therefore enclose a cheque for 7.05 pounds, which is a refund of the postage fee you paid, for a service we were unable to provide on this occasion.
I hope you will accept this along with my apologies for the concern and inconvenience you have been caused. If we can be of anymore help, please contact us again.
------------------------------------------------
Kan ni na be chao jibye, what the fuck do you mean by my letter went astray? Tsk tsk, naughty letter, why you run about? Simi lan jiao? Caused me so much trouble that day and make me cannot revise in peace...
Still I guess I should be thankful that the package got sent in the end. It could have been worse, it could still be lying in some red Royal Mail truck. And the postage turned out to be free in the end.
Moral of the story: If got precious items to send, don't use Royal Mail. Especially stuff that cannot be bought like what you handmade for example. Grrrrr...
Thursday, May 05, 2005
No goal!
From Sky Sports:
Confirms my initial suspicions that it was never a goal. But to me it was better for Chelsea because they would have conceded a penalty and had Cech sent off otherwise. The "Baros fouled Cech because his foot was high" argument from the Home United coach on ESPN is absolute rubbish. Baros was much quicker to the ball than Cech.
Anyway the performances by Liverpool and PSV showed that teamwork, preparation and tactics can get you a long way. That's the beauty of football. Talent can get you a long way but good preparation and tactics and teamwork won't leave you a long way behind either. Liverpool and PSV showed that on both nights and they did not roll over and die when faced with supposedly better teams in Chelsea and Milan.
No Jose, the better team did not lose. You had the more talented team but definitely not THE BETTER TEAM.
Wish I could write more but I really need some sleep now. Just hope that Milan's individual talent will triumph against Liverpool's teamwork though :S
Confirms my initial suspicions that it was never a goal. But to me it was better for Chelsea because they would have conceded a penalty and had Cech sent off otherwise. The "Baros fouled Cech because his foot was high" argument from the Home United coach on ESPN is absolute rubbish. Baros was much quicker to the ball than Cech.
Anyway the performances by Liverpool and PSV showed that teamwork, preparation and tactics can get you a long way. That's the beauty of football. Talent can get you a long way but good preparation and tactics and teamwork won't leave you a long way behind either. Liverpool and PSV showed that on both nights and they did not roll over and die when faced with supposedly better teams in Chelsea and Milan.
No Jose, the better team did not lose. You had the more talented team but definitely not THE BETTER TEAM.
Wish I could write more but I really need some sleep now. Just hope that Milan's individual talent will triumph against Liverpool's teamwork though :S
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Shareholders United Press Release
More, more, more!!!
From Shareholders United forum:
SHAREHOLDERS UNITED PRESS RELEASE.
http://www.shareholdersunited.org/
P. O. Box 146, Manchester, M16 8XW
2 May 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“IT’S HANDS IN POCKETS TIME”
There has been overwhelming public interest in the story in the Sunday Times yesterday about the proposal to set up a leveraged investment trust (LIT) for Manchester United (MU) supporters, backed with finance provided by Nomura International, the investment bank. Here is some clarification and further explanation of the plan.
Background
SU has attracted United supporters all over the world (27,000 members in 85 countries) to join the ‘independence’ campaign and to buy shares through the SU Share Scheme. SU members feel strongly about their club, strongly enough to want to get together and do something about it, even if that means buying just a single share. While SU does not have control of enough shares to itself to block Glazer or any other bidder, it is one of the supporters groups (along with IMUSA and the fanzines) which represents the feelings of the vast majority of fans who say loud and clear that their club is “Not For Sale”.
“Up to now, we have focused on getting the fans to act and to come together in opposing Glazer and other predators, and we have been very successful” said SU Chair Nick Towle. “But we have not so far come up with a vehicle to attract enough of the wealthier supporters, those who can afford a few thousand or even a few million, to invest in a collective stake big enough to protect the club from takeover, but who obviously would not want to see that investment lost or put at clear risk. We think that, with the proposed investment trust funded with leverage provided by Nomura, we have found that vehicle”.
How it works
The constitution and precise workings of the LIT have not been finalised, but SU is confident that with the backing of Nomura and other specialist advisers yet to be appointed, this trust will meet the expectations of the fans, the investors and those who provide it with funding. This is a new and relatively untested area for financings, a leveraged investment trust for supporter-shareholders of a football club, but Nomura undoubtedly has all of experience and expertise necessary for such cutting edge financing.
Step-by-step – the timetable
These steps are an outline of the process which SU considers needs to be undertaken to make the LIT effective – they have not been discussed in any detail yet with Nomura.
1. This week, SU is sending a letter to c.7,000 of the larger individual MU shareholders with >1,000 MU shares (Note: comprising somewhere between 10-12% of the total MU equity – as at 31.07.04) asking them to let us know whether they would be interested in participating in the LIT – recipients will be invited to respond by post or online at the Su website. The remaining 25,000 or so individual MU shareholders will be written to at a later stage.
2. SU will be canvassing its list of “red knights”, those wealthy United supporters (including some celebrity names in the business and showbiz worlds) who may be interested in taking part – we hope to be able to announce some names over the next few weeks. The net will be cast as wide as possible, even using some “business angel” databases we have access to.
3. Once we have gauged, together with Nomura and our advisers, that there is enough interest from shareholders and potential new investors in the LIT, the trust will be formally established and an offer document will be sent out inviting participants to commit.
4. The LIT will be a normal investment trust, except that it will be a single asset trust (i.e. the shares of MU which it acquires) – it will hold no other equity investments. For this reason, for regulatory purposes, the LIT will probably have to based offshore in a reputable banking & financial centre such as the Channel Islands. The LIT will have the power (i) to issue ‘units’ (or shares) in its own capital to those investors who pay for them in either cash or assets in the form of MU shares, and (ii) to borrow against those assets.
5. Participants who are existing MU shareholders (probably starting with a minimum number of shares, maybe 500 or 1,000), will exchange their MU shares for ‘units’ in the capital of LIT of equal value.
6. Cash investors (including red knights) will also receive ‘units’ in exchange for the cash they pay to the LIT. This cash will go to buy MU shares on the market for the LIT. [SU has looked into schemes to provide fans with personal loans to buy shares and already has one offer from a reputable finance house to fund up to £100 million in unsecured loans of up to £10,000 each for fans to buy shares, subject to status.]
7. The MU shares acquired by the LIT from these two sources will be ‘locked in’ to the extent necessary to protect the club from unwanted takeover, but in line with normal investment trust operating criteria.
8. Instead of being shareholders in MU, investors will be shareholders in the LIT which in turn owns the MU shares on trust.
9. The units issued by the LIT to investors will be traded on a secondary market, run by a market maker. Investors can therefore buy and sell their units at any time in the future – guaranteeing an ‘exit’, but without affecting the MU shares which will remain under ‘lock & key’ in the LIT.
10. The units in the LIT will also have a return on the investment, yet to be finalised. The dividend payable by MU to the LIT on the MU shares is available to pay this return, but there is also the requirement to repay the leverage provided to buy further shares (see below). We hope to be able to talk to the club about providing alternative special benefits to LIT investors in the form of rights to match tickets or seats in the Directors’ box and other similar investor perks.
11. The most important aspect of this LIT is the next part – for every £1 worth of MU shares acquired by the LIT, Nomura will lend a further £1 to the LIT which can be used to buy more MU shares in the market. “Double your money” or “twice the bang for your buck” – this is what is known as leverage, using existing assets to raise more funds. But this is a friendly leverage, as opposed to Glazer’s type of aggressive borrowing against the assets and revenues of the club. The terms of the leverage have yet to be decided, e,g, interest rate and repayment terms, and supporters will be keen to know how far the assets of the LIT (the MU shares) will be at risk if there is a default in repayment of the Nomura loans by the LIT. Again, we are relying on Nomura to come up with a satisfactory solution to these issues which are clearly sensitive ones for supporters, recognising that there has to be security for the loans and a return on the financing cost.
We hope that there will be enough interest in this plan to enable us to get to the desired 25% as quickly as possible, as this is the number at which Glazer’s takeover plan becomes impossible. With the leverage element, we would only need commitments from individual MU shareholders and cash investors of around 8 or 9% of the MU capital, which with the 2x leverage would give us 20% of the club (if you add in SU and SU members’ holdings).
SU Chair Nick Towle commented: “This is a very achievable and credible strategy and we urge all United fans, especially those with big money, to get behind it and get their hands in their pockets. The question all fans have to ask is: would you rather find the money to save your club and keep it independent, or hand it over to Glazer in increased prices for tickets, merchandise and facilities at Old Trafford?”.
SU Board
*Notes to editors:
SU is a not-for-profit organisation of United fans holding shares in United for emotional rather than financial reasons and who oppose attempts by Glazer or any other individual or company who wants to acquire Manchester United for profit. SU believes United should be independently owned, with supporters having a significant stake and a real voice in the running of the club. SU membership has risen to over 27,000 members since starting up 5 years ago.
SU is currently a company limited by guarantee, but is about to put a proposal to members to convert into an Industrial & Provident Society registered with and overseen by the Financial Services Authority.
From Shareholders United forum:
SHAREHOLDERS UNITED PRESS RELEASE.
http://www.shareholdersunited.org/
P. O. Box 146, Manchester, M16 8XW
2 May 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“IT’S HANDS IN POCKETS TIME”
There has been overwhelming public interest in the story in the Sunday Times yesterday about the proposal to set up a leveraged investment trust (LIT) for Manchester United (MU) supporters, backed with finance provided by Nomura International, the investment bank. Here is some clarification and further explanation of the plan.
Background
SU has attracted United supporters all over the world (27,000 members in 85 countries) to join the ‘independence’ campaign and to buy shares through the SU Share Scheme. SU members feel strongly about their club, strongly enough to want to get together and do something about it, even if that means buying just a single share. While SU does not have control of enough shares to itself to block Glazer or any other bidder, it is one of the supporters groups (along with IMUSA and the fanzines) which represents the feelings of the vast majority of fans who say loud and clear that their club is “Not For Sale”.
“Up to now, we have focused on getting the fans to act and to come together in opposing Glazer and other predators, and we have been very successful” said SU Chair Nick Towle. “But we have not so far come up with a vehicle to attract enough of the wealthier supporters, those who can afford a few thousand or even a few million, to invest in a collective stake big enough to protect the club from takeover, but who obviously would not want to see that investment lost or put at clear risk. We think that, with the proposed investment trust funded with leverage provided by Nomura, we have found that vehicle”.
How it works
The constitution and precise workings of the LIT have not been finalised, but SU is confident that with the backing of Nomura and other specialist advisers yet to be appointed, this trust will meet the expectations of the fans, the investors and those who provide it with funding. This is a new and relatively untested area for financings, a leveraged investment trust for supporter-shareholders of a football club, but Nomura undoubtedly has all of experience and expertise necessary for such cutting edge financing.
Step-by-step – the timetable
These steps are an outline of the process which SU considers needs to be undertaken to make the LIT effective – they have not been discussed in any detail yet with Nomura.
1. This week, SU is sending a letter to c.7,000 of the larger individual MU shareholders with >1,000 MU shares (Note: comprising somewhere between 10-12% of the total MU equity – as at 31.07.04) asking them to let us know whether they would be interested in participating in the LIT – recipients will be invited to respond by post or online at the Su website. The remaining 25,000 or so individual MU shareholders will be written to at a later stage.
2. SU will be canvassing its list of “red knights”, those wealthy United supporters (including some celebrity names in the business and showbiz worlds) who may be interested in taking part – we hope to be able to announce some names over the next few weeks. The net will be cast as wide as possible, even using some “business angel” databases we have access to.
3. Once we have gauged, together with Nomura and our advisers, that there is enough interest from shareholders and potential new investors in the LIT, the trust will be formally established and an offer document will be sent out inviting participants to commit.
4. The LIT will be a normal investment trust, except that it will be a single asset trust (i.e. the shares of MU which it acquires) – it will hold no other equity investments. For this reason, for regulatory purposes, the LIT will probably have to based offshore in a reputable banking & financial centre such as the Channel Islands. The LIT will have the power (i) to issue ‘units’ (or shares) in its own capital to those investors who pay for them in either cash or assets in the form of MU shares, and (ii) to borrow against those assets.
5. Participants who are existing MU shareholders (probably starting with a minimum number of shares, maybe 500 or 1,000), will exchange their MU shares for ‘units’ in the capital of LIT of equal value.
6. Cash investors (including red knights) will also receive ‘units’ in exchange for the cash they pay to the LIT. This cash will go to buy MU shares on the market for the LIT. [SU has looked into schemes to provide fans with personal loans to buy shares and already has one offer from a reputable finance house to fund up to £100 million in unsecured loans of up to £10,000 each for fans to buy shares, subject to status.]
7. The MU shares acquired by the LIT from these two sources will be ‘locked in’ to the extent necessary to protect the club from unwanted takeover, but in line with normal investment trust operating criteria.
8. Instead of being shareholders in MU, investors will be shareholders in the LIT which in turn owns the MU shares on trust.
9. The units issued by the LIT to investors will be traded on a secondary market, run by a market maker. Investors can therefore buy and sell their units at any time in the future – guaranteeing an ‘exit’, but without affecting the MU shares which will remain under ‘lock & key’ in the LIT.
10. The units in the LIT will also have a return on the investment, yet to be finalised. The dividend payable by MU to the LIT on the MU shares is available to pay this return, but there is also the requirement to repay the leverage provided to buy further shares (see below). We hope to be able to talk to the club about providing alternative special benefits to LIT investors in the form of rights to match tickets or seats in the Directors’ box and other similar investor perks.
11. The most important aspect of this LIT is the next part – for every £1 worth of MU shares acquired by the LIT, Nomura will lend a further £1 to the LIT which can be used to buy more MU shares in the market. “Double your money” or “twice the bang for your buck” – this is what is known as leverage, using existing assets to raise more funds. But this is a friendly leverage, as opposed to Glazer’s type of aggressive borrowing against the assets and revenues of the club. The terms of the leverage have yet to be decided, e,g, interest rate and repayment terms, and supporters will be keen to know how far the assets of the LIT (the MU shares) will be at risk if there is a default in repayment of the Nomura loans by the LIT. Again, we are relying on Nomura to come up with a satisfactory solution to these issues which are clearly sensitive ones for supporters, recognising that there has to be security for the loans and a return on the financing cost.
We hope that there will be enough interest in this plan to enable us to get to the desired 25% as quickly as possible, as this is the number at which Glazer’s takeover plan becomes impossible. With the leverage element, we would only need commitments from individual MU shareholders and cash investors of around 8 or 9% of the MU capital, which with the 2x leverage would give us 20% of the club (if you add in SU and SU members’ holdings).
SU Chair Nick Towle commented: “This is a very achievable and credible strategy and we urge all United fans, especially those with big money, to get behind it and get their hands in their pockets. The question all fans have to ask is: would you rather find the money to save your club and keep it independent, or hand it over to Glazer in increased prices for tickets, merchandise and facilities at Old Trafford?”.
SU Board
*Notes to editors:
SU is a not-for-profit organisation of United fans holding shares in United for emotional rather than financial reasons and who oppose attempts by Glazer or any other individual or company who wants to acquire Manchester United for profit. SU believes United should be independently owned, with supporters having a significant stake and a real voice in the running of the club. SU membership has risen to over 27,000 members since starting up 5 years ago.
SU is currently a company limited by guarantee, but is about to put a proposal to members to convert into an Industrial & Provident Society registered with and overseen by the Financial Services Authority.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Fuck tabloids, read proper newspapers
Yes yes I know some of you are bored to tears but all this takeover talk, but trust me, its way more interesting than my life right now. Unless you all want to hear about indifference curves, budget constraints, Phillips curves, monetary rules, CAPM, product life cycle theory, Microsoft, Who gains and who loses in free trade blah blah, then I will gladly oblige...
From Sunday Times:
May 01, 2005
Taken on trust
Jonathan Northcroft
A Japanese bank gives Manchester United fans a chance to send Malcolm Glazer packing and call the shots at the club
The Manchester United website is full of ways for fans to enmesh their lives with their club. Click here to get a Manchester United credit card, there for a personal loan. Follow this link to have Manchester United broadband piped into you home, that one to enter a competition for a visit behind the scenes at Carrington. No sporting outfit in Europe is so adept at getting people to pay for the illusion of involvement.
Yet supporters can now do something that would guarantee them a very real means to participate in United: they can call the shots at their club. Short of pulling on the red shirt itself, or assuming Sir Alex Ferguson’s place, it is hard to imagine anything beating that. Six weeks ago, The Sunday Times revealed a plan by supporters to buy a share of power at Old Trafford with the immediate aim of warding off Malcolm Glazer, but the long-term strategy of giving ordinary fans a veto over major decision-making at United in perpetuity. A common, and understandable, reaction was: nice idea but where will they get the money? Not for the first time, campaigning United fans are poised to confound expectation.
Shareholders United (SU) and the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (IMUSA), the groups leading the fight against the American tycoon, have secured the backing of Nomura, the leading investment bank, which has agreed to lend them up to £100m to finance their scheme to acquire up to 25% of United shares and block Glazer’s take-over attempt. From Tuesday, United’s 30,000 individual shareholders, who account for an estimated 18% of the club’s ownership, will receive letters asking if they would be willing to join a new fans’ investment trust. This is aimed at creating a collective bloc of equity in the hands of supporters. Fans who have cash, but no shares, will also be able to join.
In a statement confirming Nomura’s involvement, agreed with the bank, SU and IMUSA said they “are in active discussions with the asset finance group at Nomura about ways in which supporter-shareholders can help build a collective stake in Manchester United plc and keep the club independent.”
Nomura are prepared to lend on a pound for pound basis, meaning that for every £1 of United shares or cash committed to the trust, the bank would offer to double it. Rather like a mortgage, the fans would then repay Nomura over a period of many years, using the annual dividends paid by United’s board to shareholders. One of the beauties of the scheme is that units in the trust will be tradeable so that fans needing to sell up could. It is hoped several “red knights” — wealthy United supporters who have expressed an interest in saving the club from Glazer — will join in with significant funds. Fans are appealing to high-profile United lovers, such as actors and pop stars, and perhaps even football figures such as Gary Neville and Ferguson himself, to come on board.
The supporters’ previous plan had been to acquire 25% through a “tender offer”, funded by many thousands of fans taking out personal loans. Now with a heavyweight like Nomura behind them, and the promise of a large amount of money at their disposal, the fans have suddenly become serious players. Everything rests on the response to their mailshot, which will particularly target the 7,000 individual United shareholders — including director Maurice Watkins — who hold 1,000 or more shares and account for around 13% of the club. Previously SU, with a 26,500 membership and definite control over 2% of the club, have estimated they could gain support from enough individual shareholders — many normal United fans who may have had shares in the family for years, or invested through love of their club — to take them up to 10%. Now they are about to find out.
“Our interest is in helping supporters protect the club from predators,” said Gary Wilder, head of Nomura’s Asset Finance Group. “However, we can only move forward if supporters show they are interested.”
Nick Towle, the SU chairman, said: “This is the moment of truth. We want all United supporter-shareholders, small or large, rich or poor, to get behind the trust and help keep the club free from predators.”
The fans’ actions come at a critical point in Glazer’s bid. Last Thursday the Takeover Panel issued him with a “put up or shut up” ultimatum, giving him until midday on May 17 to declare whether he intends to bid for United. The Florida tycoon, who owns a 28.1% stake, has been in talks over an £800m or 300p-a-share offer for the football club, but United chief executive David Gill and his plc board at Old Trafford have refused to recommend his business plan, describing it as “aggressive” and criticising the huge debt involved. A key to success for the tycoon is buying out the Irish racing magnates John Magnier and JP McManus, who hold a 28.9% stake but, contrary to some reports, it is understood Glazer has yet to talk to the Irishmen.
The fans want a 25% stake because anyone who wants to make a fundamental change to the running of a business requires a 75.1% vote to pass special resolutions at an EGM, and Glazer would need this to transfer the amount he is proposing to borrow — a large proportion of the further £540m he needs to buy United — to the club. However, SU are being advised that 10% is likely to be enough to foil the American. The minimum the fans need from their mailshot, which will be followed up by phone calls from a professional company acting for free, is a further 3% of shareholders to express interest in joining the investment trust. Added to SU’s 2% this would give them a starting block of 5% that could be doubled using Nomura’s money.
The supporters, who have been talking to the Japanese-owned bank for more than six months, with the full knowledge of the Takeover Panel and, latterly, Gill and his board, referred to the Nomura scheme as “Project Excalibur” in communications and correspondence.
SU have written to Magnier and McManus, begging them not to sell to Glazer and offering to buy a proportion of their holding. The Irish duo, through their vehicle Cubic Expression, have always claimed to be long-term investors and their refusal — so far — to jump at Glazer’s offer has delighted supporters who previously viewed them as profiteers. Others with United stakes, such as the Scottish mining magnate Harry Dobson , who holds 6%, are thought to be in more of a hurry to sell, and Dobson is someone the fans may target with an offer.
With 25% the fans could ask for a seat on the board but they would not have the power to make major football decisions such as setting the transfer budget or appointing a new manager.
“That’s not our interest,” said SU spokesman Oliver Houston. “This is not about taking control so we can make the club spend £40m on a new goalkeeper. We’d want to leave the corporate side to professionals like David Gill and the football side to professionals like Sir Alex Ferguson. We’re not luddites. We’re shareholders who also want United to make buckets of money — we just want the club to be independent and run in the right way.”
Nevertheless, 25% would give supporters serious weight when it came to issues such as ticket prices, the expansion of Old Trafford and, indeed, certain football affairs. With their similar stake Cubic were able to force an inquiry into United’s transfer dealings and influence a decision to reduce the length left of Ferguson’s contract.
Glazer, with 28.1%, has already been able to vote directors off the board.
United fans, who previously fought off Rupert Murdoch, have played a leading role in the growth of supporter power in England, and should they acquire power Houston hopes it would encourage fans at other clubs to do similar.
Pleading for United followers to commit to the new investment trust, he said: “Our need is great, the time is now. This is an opportunity we can’t let slip through our fingers. Over United’s 127-year history you think of all the defining events, the second world war bombing of Old Trafford, Munich, the first European Cup, the Treble in 1999 — without wishing to sound pompous, this could be another of them.”
SU will this week launch a fundraising drive beginning with the issue of 100,000 “MUFC: Not For Sale” wristbands which they hope to place on sale through major retailers such as Virgin, WH Smith and JJB Sports and perhaps even persuade United players to wear.
Towle added: “The trust will be active buyers of United shares within a short space of time and, as the trust grows, hopefully for the foreseeable future. If Mr Glazer is interested in selling his shares we will be happy to talk to him.”
For further information, see www.ShareholdersUnited.org
From Sunday Times:
May 01, 2005
Taken on trust
Jonathan Northcroft
A Japanese bank gives Manchester United fans a chance to send Malcolm Glazer packing and call the shots at the club
The Manchester United website is full of ways for fans to enmesh their lives with their club. Click here to get a Manchester United credit card, there for a personal loan. Follow this link to have Manchester United broadband piped into you home, that one to enter a competition for a visit behind the scenes at Carrington. No sporting outfit in Europe is so adept at getting people to pay for the illusion of involvement.
Yet supporters can now do something that would guarantee them a very real means to participate in United: they can call the shots at their club. Short of pulling on the red shirt itself, or assuming Sir Alex Ferguson’s place, it is hard to imagine anything beating that. Six weeks ago, The Sunday Times revealed a plan by supporters to buy a share of power at Old Trafford with the immediate aim of warding off Malcolm Glazer, but the long-term strategy of giving ordinary fans a veto over major decision-making at United in perpetuity. A common, and understandable, reaction was: nice idea but where will they get the money? Not for the first time, campaigning United fans are poised to confound expectation.
Shareholders United (SU) and the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (IMUSA), the groups leading the fight against the American tycoon, have secured the backing of Nomura, the leading investment bank, which has agreed to lend them up to £100m to finance their scheme to acquire up to 25% of United shares and block Glazer’s take-over attempt. From Tuesday, United’s 30,000 individual shareholders, who account for an estimated 18% of the club’s ownership, will receive letters asking if they would be willing to join a new fans’ investment trust. This is aimed at creating a collective bloc of equity in the hands of supporters. Fans who have cash, but no shares, will also be able to join.
In a statement confirming Nomura’s involvement, agreed with the bank, SU and IMUSA said they “are in active discussions with the asset finance group at Nomura about ways in which supporter-shareholders can help build a collective stake in Manchester United plc and keep the club independent.”
Nomura are prepared to lend on a pound for pound basis, meaning that for every £1 of United shares or cash committed to the trust, the bank would offer to double it. Rather like a mortgage, the fans would then repay Nomura over a period of many years, using the annual dividends paid by United’s board to shareholders. One of the beauties of the scheme is that units in the trust will be tradeable so that fans needing to sell up could. It is hoped several “red knights” — wealthy United supporters who have expressed an interest in saving the club from Glazer — will join in with significant funds. Fans are appealing to high-profile United lovers, such as actors and pop stars, and perhaps even football figures such as Gary Neville and Ferguson himself, to come on board.
The supporters’ previous plan had been to acquire 25% through a “tender offer”, funded by many thousands of fans taking out personal loans. Now with a heavyweight like Nomura behind them, and the promise of a large amount of money at their disposal, the fans have suddenly become serious players. Everything rests on the response to their mailshot, which will particularly target the 7,000 individual United shareholders — including director Maurice Watkins — who hold 1,000 or more shares and account for around 13% of the club. Previously SU, with a 26,500 membership and definite control over 2% of the club, have estimated they could gain support from enough individual shareholders — many normal United fans who may have had shares in the family for years, or invested through love of their club — to take them up to 10%. Now they are about to find out.
“Our interest is in helping supporters protect the club from predators,” said Gary Wilder, head of Nomura’s Asset Finance Group. “However, we can only move forward if supporters show they are interested.”
Nick Towle, the SU chairman, said: “This is the moment of truth. We want all United supporter-shareholders, small or large, rich or poor, to get behind the trust and help keep the club free from predators.”
The fans’ actions come at a critical point in Glazer’s bid. Last Thursday the Takeover Panel issued him with a “put up or shut up” ultimatum, giving him until midday on May 17 to declare whether he intends to bid for United. The Florida tycoon, who owns a 28.1% stake, has been in talks over an £800m or 300p-a-share offer for the football club, but United chief executive David Gill and his plc board at Old Trafford have refused to recommend his business plan, describing it as “aggressive” and criticising the huge debt involved. A key to success for the tycoon is buying out the Irish racing magnates John Magnier and JP McManus, who hold a 28.9% stake but, contrary to some reports, it is understood Glazer has yet to talk to the Irishmen.
The fans want a 25% stake because anyone who wants to make a fundamental change to the running of a business requires a 75.1% vote to pass special resolutions at an EGM, and Glazer would need this to transfer the amount he is proposing to borrow — a large proportion of the further £540m he needs to buy United — to the club. However, SU are being advised that 10% is likely to be enough to foil the American. The minimum the fans need from their mailshot, which will be followed up by phone calls from a professional company acting for free, is a further 3% of shareholders to express interest in joining the investment trust. Added to SU’s 2% this would give them a starting block of 5% that could be doubled using Nomura’s money.
The supporters, who have been talking to the Japanese-owned bank for more than six months, with the full knowledge of the Takeover Panel and, latterly, Gill and his board, referred to the Nomura scheme as “Project Excalibur” in communications and correspondence.
SU have written to Magnier and McManus, begging them not to sell to Glazer and offering to buy a proportion of their holding. The Irish duo, through their vehicle Cubic Expression, have always claimed to be long-term investors and their refusal — so far — to jump at Glazer’s offer has delighted supporters who previously viewed them as profiteers. Others with United stakes, such as the Scottish mining magnate Harry Dobson , who holds 6%, are thought to be in more of a hurry to sell, and Dobson is someone the fans may target with an offer.
With 25% the fans could ask for a seat on the board but they would not have the power to make major football decisions such as setting the transfer budget or appointing a new manager.
“That’s not our interest,” said SU spokesman Oliver Houston. “This is not about taking control so we can make the club spend £40m on a new goalkeeper. We’d want to leave the corporate side to professionals like David Gill and the football side to professionals like Sir Alex Ferguson. We’re not luddites. We’re shareholders who also want United to make buckets of money — we just want the club to be independent and run in the right way.”
Nevertheless, 25% would give supporters serious weight when it came to issues such as ticket prices, the expansion of Old Trafford and, indeed, certain football affairs. With their similar stake Cubic were able to force an inquiry into United’s transfer dealings and influence a decision to reduce the length left of Ferguson’s contract.
Glazer, with 28.1%, has already been able to vote directors off the board.
United fans, who previously fought off Rupert Murdoch, have played a leading role in the growth of supporter power in England, and should they acquire power Houston hopes it would encourage fans at other clubs to do similar.
Pleading for United followers to commit to the new investment trust, he said: “Our need is great, the time is now. This is an opportunity we can’t let slip through our fingers. Over United’s 127-year history you think of all the defining events, the second world war bombing of Old Trafford, Munich, the first European Cup, the Treble in 1999 — without wishing to sound pompous, this could be another of them.”
SU will this week launch a fundraising drive beginning with the issue of 100,000 “MUFC: Not For Sale” wristbands which they hope to place on sale through major retailers such as Virgin, WH Smith and JJB Sports and perhaps even persuade United players to wear.
Towle added: “The trust will be active buyers of United shares within a short space of time and, as the trust grows, hopefully for the foreseeable future. If Mr Glazer is interested in selling his shares we will be happy to talk to him.”
For further information, see www.ShareholdersUnited.org
Monday, May 02, 2005
United we stand, divided we fall...
What the banner says:
Warning: Using MUFC may result in serious damage to your health
From Soccernet:
Bank comes to aid of Shareholders Utd
An investment bank have offered disgruntled Manchester United supporters a new means of combating Malcolm Glazer's takeover approach, according to a report.
United supporters are fearing an imminent formal bid from the American tycoon after he was set a deadline of May 17 to `put up or shut up' by the Takeover Panel.
They are aiming to prevent the tycoon obtaining the 75% of shares he requires to take a controlling interest.
The Sunday Times report that investment bank Nomura will back United fans to the tune of '100million, lending on a '1-for-'1 basis, with supporters trading in their shares for units in a trust held by Shareholders United.
For every '1 of shares or cash committed to the trust, Nomura would lend SU the same amount, says the report, allowing the supporters' group to create a war chest with which they could set about buying up further shares.
'Our interest is in helping supporters protect the club from predators,' said Gary Wilder, head of Nomura's Asset Finance Group.
'However we can only move forward if supporters show they are interested.'
Presently, minor shareholders - of whom many are supporters of the football club - are estimated to own 18% of United.
SU hold approximately 2% of shares, while Glazer has a 28.1% stake and the Irish businessmen John Magnier and JP McManus own 28.9% through their Cubic Expression investment vehicle.
Glazer has yet to win the support of United's plc board, who have to date refused to recommend his proposal to shareholders, stating that 'the assumptions in the Glazer business plan are aggressive'. Providing his banks stay on side, he is ready to offer 300p per share, a price which United's board recognise could have appeal, particularly to those shareholders without an emotional attachment to the club.
SU chairman Nick Towle said: 'It's reckoning time. We want all United supporter-shareholders, small or large, rich or poor, to get behind this trust and keep the club free from predators.'
Warning: Using MUFC may result in serious damage to your health
From Soccernet:
Bank comes to aid of Shareholders Utd
An investment bank have offered disgruntled Manchester United supporters a new means of combating Malcolm Glazer's takeover approach, according to a report.
United supporters are fearing an imminent formal bid from the American tycoon after he was set a deadline of May 17 to `put up or shut up' by the Takeover Panel.
They are aiming to prevent the tycoon obtaining the 75% of shares he requires to take a controlling interest.
The Sunday Times report that investment bank Nomura will back United fans to the tune of '100million, lending on a '1-for-'1 basis, with supporters trading in their shares for units in a trust held by Shareholders United.
For every '1 of shares or cash committed to the trust, Nomura would lend SU the same amount, says the report, allowing the supporters' group to create a war chest with which they could set about buying up further shares.
'Our interest is in helping supporters protect the club from predators,' said Gary Wilder, head of Nomura's Asset Finance Group.
'However we can only move forward if supporters show they are interested.'
Presently, minor shareholders - of whom many are supporters of the football club - are estimated to own 18% of United.
SU hold approximately 2% of shares, while Glazer has a 28.1% stake and the Irish businessmen John Magnier and JP McManus own 28.9% through their Cubic Expression investment vehicle.
Glazer has yet to win the support of United's plc board, who have to date refused to recommend his proposal to shareholders, stating that 'the assumptions in the Glazer business plan are aggressive'. Providing his banks stay on side, he is ready to offer 300p per share, a price which United's board recognise could have appeal, particularly to those shareholders without an emotional attachment to the club.
SU chairman Nick Towle said: 'It's reckoning time. We want all United supporter-shareholders, small or large, rich or poor, to get behind this trust and keep the club free from predators.'
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Futile struggle
Sometimes you just feel extremely helpless and that no matter how much effort you put in, the inevitable still happens...Lampard still scores...
Congrats to Chelsea, they have fully deserved the league title.
I hope Fergie forced everyone in the United squad to watch Sky Sports today. If the sight of Chelsea players celebrating doesn't motivate them to fight next year, nothing ever will.
I am a sore loser...
Congrats to Chelsea, they have fully deserved the league title.
I hope Fergie forced everyone in the United squad to watch Sky Sports today. If the sight of Chelsea players celebrating doesn't motivate them to fight next year, nothing ever will.
I am a sore loser...
Friday, April 29, 2005
Ask not what your club can do for you, but what you can do for your club...
The battlelines have been drawn, the enemy is right in front. Are YOU ready to fight for the Red Army?
Join Shareholders United
Statements from the club and Takeover Panel:
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200504281358526659L.html
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200504281350206651L.html
From Soccernet:
Takeover panel set Glazer deadline
The battle lines for control of Manchester United have been drawn - and Malcolm Glazer must make the first move.
After months of jousting, the patience of the United board has finally snapped and the American business tycoon has been given just over a fortnight to decide whether he intends to pursue his £800million dream of seizing control at the world's richest club.
On May 17, five days before Sir Alex Ferguson's side face the match that will define their season against Arsenal in the FA Cup Final in Cardiff, Glazer must confirm an intention to bid, or walk away with his own hopes in ruins.
The `put up or shut up' deadline imposed by the Takeover Panel came after a demand from United chief executive David Gill to show his hand.
Sick of the disruption Glazer's manoeuvrings have caused to the running of United and convinced the latest set of proposals submitted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner are equally as `ambitious' and `potentially damaging' as the last, Gill has decided it is time for closure.
'The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the potential Glazer offer is disruptive to the business of the company and, in the current circumstances, it is in the interests of all concerned to have a definitive timetable,' said a statement issued from Old Trafford.
'The board remains of the view that the assumptions in the Glazer business plan are aggressive,' added the statement.
'Furthermore the board believes that, notwithstanding the changes from the previous proposals, the proposed capital structure, taken as a whole, still contains more leverage than the board would consider prudent and that as a consequence there is likely to be significant financial strain on the business.
'The board recognises, however, that the price of 300p per share is a fair one and may be attractive to some shareholders of Manchester United.
'Given the board's concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on the company, the board has informed Glazer that it cannot provide a recommendation to shareholders to accept any offer made on the basis of the current proposal.
'Whilst recognising that the price under Glazer's proposal is fair, the board's unanimous view is that they could not support Glazer's proposal (were it to become a formal offer) as being in the best interests of the company.'
The move has been widely welcomed by the United supporters who have campaigned so vigorously against Glazer's involvement and are sure to step up their protests at the club's final two home league fixtures against West Brom and Chelsea in the next fortnight.
Having shown no previous inclination to take fans' views into account, any demonstration is unlikely to deflect Glazer from his quest to complete a takeover.
Rather than be deterred by the announcement, the American, whose sons Joel and Avi are believed to be fronting the bid, will probably see it as a green light to proceed with his plans.
No-one from the Glazer camp has been prepared to comment on the latest development but it is thought the wording of the United statement will not affect the backing of bankers JP Morgan and NM Rothschild, who are putting together the majority of funding.
Talks between Glazer and the banks are believed to be continuing and while no confirmation over his plans is expected until much nearer the deadline, it would be a major surprise if he backed out now.
Once a bid is lodged, shareholders would have a maximum of 60 days to respond, with all the focus then switching to John Magnier and JP McManus, who through their Cubic Expression investment vehicle own a 28.9% stake in United.
Without the agreement of the Irish racing duo, Glazer has no hope of success and he, like everyone else, is completely in the dark over their intentions.
Other than a statement two months ago confirming Cubic remained `long-term investors', there has never been any indication as to whether Magnier and McManus would be willing to sell.
There has been no contact between Glazer and Cubic since the Irish broke off discussions in October, although that situation is bound to change once Glazer launches his formal bid.
Fans groups who have lobbied so hard against the 78-year-old are on a war footing too, with further protests likely prior to the forthcoming Premiership clashes with West Brom and Chelsea.
'The danger has not passed,' warned SU spokesman Oliver Houston.
'Glazer could still submit a bid within the deadline and other predators could be out there waiting to pick up Glazer's shares which could well now be available at a price below his proposed offer price.
'We urge United fans to continue to show their opposition to Glazer and other potential bidders and to join the large and growing number who are prepared to do something positive to protect our clubs' heritage and its future.'
Join Shareholders United
Statements from the club and Takeover Panel:
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200504281358526659L.html
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200504281350206651L.html
From Soccernet:
Takeover panel set Glazer deadline
The battle lines for control of Manchester United have been drawn - and Malcolm Glazer must make the first move.
After months of jousting, the patience of the United board has finally snapped and the American business tycoon has been given just over a fortnight to decide whether he intends to pursue his £800million dream of seizing control at the world's richest club.
On May 17, five days before Sir Alex Ferguson's side face the match that will define their season against Arsenal in the FA Cup Final in Cardiff, Glazer must confirm an intention to bid, or walk away with his own hopes in ruins.
The `put up or shut up' deadline imposed by the Takeover Panel came after a demand from United chief executive David Gill to show his hand.
Sick of the disruption Glazer's manoeuvrings have caused to the running of United and convinced the latest set of proposals submitted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner are equally as `ambitious' and `potentially damaging' as the last, Gill has decided it is time for closure.
'The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the potential Glazer offer is disruptive to the business of the company and, in the current circumstances, it is in the interests of all concerned to have a definitive timetable,' said a statement issued from Old Trafford.
'The board remains of the view that the assumptions in the Glazer business plan are aggressive,' added the statement.
'Furthermore the board believes that, notwithstanding the changes from the previous proposals, the proposed capital structure, taken as a whole, still contains more leverage than the board would consider prudent and that as a consequence there is likely to be significant financial strain on the business.
'The board recognises, however, that the price of 300p per share is a fair one and may be attractive to some shareholders of Manchester United.
'Given the board's concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on the company, the board has informed Glazer that it cannot provide a recommendation to shareholders to accept any offer made on the basis of the current proposal.
'Whilst recognising that the price under Glazer's proposal is fair, the board's unanimous view is that they could not support Glazer's proposal (were it to become a formal offer) as being in the best interests of the company.'
The move has been widely welcomed by the United supporters who have campaigned so vigorously against Glazer's involvement and are sure to step up their protests at the club's final two home league fixtures against West Brom and Chelsea in the next fortnight.
Having shown no previous inclination to take fans' views into account, any demonstration is unlikely to deflect Glazer from his quest to complete a takeover.
Rather than be deterred by the announcement, the American, whose sons Joel and Avi are believed to be fronting the bid, will probably see it as a green light to proceed with his plans.
No-one from the Glazer camp has been prepared to comment on the latest development but it is thought the wording of the United statement will not affect the backing of bankers JP Morgan and NM Rothschild, who are putting together the majority of funding.
Talks between Glazer and the banks are believed to be continuing and while no confirmation over his plans is expected until much nearer the deadline, it would be a major surprise if he backed out now.
Once a bid is lodged, shareholders would have a maximum of 60 days to respond, with all the focus then switching to John Magnier and JP McManus, who through their Cubic Expression investment vehicle own a 28.9% stake in United.
Without the agreement of the Irish racing duo, Glazer has no hope of success and he, like everyone else, is completely in the dark over their intentions.
Other than a statement two months ago confirming Cubic remained `long-term investors', there has never been any indication as to whether Magnier and McManus would be willing to sell.
There has been no contact between Glazer and Cubic since the Irish broke off discussions in October, although that situation is bound to change once Glazer launches his formal bid.
Fans groups who have lobbied so hard against the 78-year-old are on a war footing too, with further protests likely prior to the forthcoming Premiership clashes with West Brom and Chelsea.
'The danger has not passed,' warned SU spokesman Oliver Houston.
'Glazer could still submit a bid within the deadline and other predators could be out there waiting to pick up Glazer's shares which could well now be available at a price below his proposed offer price.
'We urge United fans to continue to show their opposition to Glazer and other potential bidders and to join the large and growing number who are prepared to do something positive to protect our clubs' heritage and its future.'
No more worries!
Yeh! My MOE officer emailed me this morning to tell us that she had received our application forms (refer to post below). Phew. Damn relieved. Now can concentrate on revision again!!
Sorry to those who think they had eliminated a rival for the sponsorship. Hahahahahaha
Hmm wonder who is my lucky charm.... ^_^
Sorry to those who think they had eliminated a rival for the sponsorship. Hahahahahaha
Hmm wonder who is my lucky charm.... ^_^
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
God of Sueyness! Avoid TosH at all costs.
TosH is going to whine again.
Fucking kan ni na be chao jibye.
I sent my MOE Masters' Sponsorship application form with 2 of my friends' forms too on the 12th April.
And it hasn't arrived yet. Might be lost already :S
Fucking jibye!!!! Why am I so suey?????????
Spent a bit of time today trying to find out where the package is. Apparently it had been delivered out of UK on 13th April already. So I had to fill in a form to ask them to trace it for me from the Singapore side. And it would probably take a week to do so. But the deadline is 30th April!
I could reproduce my own form no problem, but would have to ask the lecturers to write the reference letters again. And how am I going to get it delivered by the deadline on 30th April?
I couldn't care less if I screwed up myself and cannot apply. I am slowly getting prepared to memorise kekana pusing instead of Lerner symmetry.
BUT I don't want to screw up my other 2 friends as well! AArghhhhh. it was me who was the smart aleck who suggested sending together then can save on postage. Sigh, now drag the 2 of them down. AArghhhhhhhhhhh, I hate the feeling of screwing up other people. Why did I act so smart aleck? I ought to be shot. So that my sueyness does not spread to other people.
Don't come near me. You have been warned.
Fucking kan ni na be chao jibye.
I sent my MOE Masters' Sponsorship application form with 2 of my friends' forms too on the 12th April.
And it hasn't arrived yet. Might be lost already :S
Fucking jibye!!!! Why am I so suey?????????
Spent a bit of time today trying to find out where the package is. Apparently it had been delivered out of UK on 13th April already. So I had to fill in a form to ask them to trace it for me from the Singapore side. And it would probably take a week to do so. But the deadline is 30th April!
I could reproduce my own form no problem, but would have to ask the lecturers to write the reference letters again. And how am I going to get it delivered by the deadline on 30th April?
I couldn't care less if I screwed up myself and cannot apply. I am slowly getting prepared to memorise kekana pusing instead of Lerner symmetry.
BUT I don't want to screw up my other 2 friends as well! AArghhhhh. it was me who was the smart aleck who suggested sending together then can save on postage. Sigh, now drag the 2 of them down. AArghhhhhhhhhhh, I hate the feeling of screwing up other people. Why did I act so smart aleck? I ought to be shot. So that my sueyness does not spread to other people.
Don't come near me. You have been warned.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Am I stupid?
And so casinos it is then...
To be honest, I don't exactly have strong views on this subject. I am neither deeply religious, nor too rich and flamboyant to imagine being able to visit those integrated resorts and have fun. But it does feel mildly exciting to have a "mini Las Vegas" in Singapore don't you all think so? Think theme parks and wild rides...hmmm....
But yet I also understand the fears about broken families, criminal syndicates blah blah. But perhaps I have been revising too much for my own good, I do feel that Singapore is in dire need of reinventing itself. In my Economics of Growth course, some articles had estimated that almost the entire growth of Singapore in the past few decades had come via factor accumulation (i.e increase in capital and education and skills of labour) and very little had come from technological growth, as compared to say Hong Kong which had grown more from TFP. I guess it might have been exaggerated but the main message remains stark: that the growth strategies pursued thus far is unlikely to bring us any further.
In other words, we need to pursue new areas. In fact, any area is worth looking at. Competition is THAT tough. Even Creative, that shining beacon of Singapore entrepreneurship, is finding competition with Apple tough. Even though sales of mp3 players had gone up, profits had dropped by a huge percentage (can't remember the exact figures, it was in the news a few days ago). We can't afford to let Singapore fall behind...
And one of the most ridiculous arguments that I had read sometimes was that 'you can't put a value on broken families" blah blah. To be honest, that is just total rubbish. If that is the correct attitude to take, then we should just shut down all the Economics departments in the world. You HAVE TO put a value on such things so as to properly evaluate costs and benefits. If you do not attempt to quantify such things and hide behind the excuse of losses being unquantifiable, then you will never get anything done. Road accidents happen everyday, so do we ban motor vehicles? No! Like it or not, we have to attempt to put values on such things. That's how society deals with unlimited wants and limited resources.
Nagging doubt in my mind:
Sometimes I really wonder whether Government polices are really so good that I support them, or I have been totally brain washed into believing so, or I am totally ignorant and stupid. :S :S :S
To be honest, I don't exactly have strong views on this subject. I am neither deeply religious, nor too rich and flamboyant to imagine being able to visit those integrated resorts and have fun. But it does feel mildly exciting to have a "mini Las Vegas" in Singapore don't you all think so? Think theme parks and wild rides...hmmm....
But yet I also understand the fears about broken families, criminal syndicates blah blah. But perhaps I have been revising too much for my own good, I do feel that Singapore is in dire need of reinventing itself. In my Economics of Growth course, some articles had estimated that almost the entire growth of Singapore in the past few decades had come via factor accumulation (i.e increase in capital and education and skills of labour) and very little had come from technological growth, as compared to say Hong Kong which had grown more from TFP. I guess it might have been exaggerated but the main message remains stark: that the growth strategies pursued thus far is unlikely to bring us any further.
In other words, we need to pursue new areas. In fact, any area is worth looking at. Competition is THAT tough. Even Creative, that shining beacon of Singapore entrepreneurship, is finding competition with Apple tough. Even though sales of mp3 players had gone up, profits had dropped by a huge percentage (can't remember the exact figures, it was in the news a few days ago). We can't afford to let Singapore fall behind...
And one of the most ridiculous arguments that I had read sometimes was that 'you can't put a value on broken families" blah blah. To be honest, that is just total rubbish. If that is the correct attitude to take, then we should just shut down all the Economics departments in the world. You HAVE TO put a value on such things so as to properly evaluate costs and benefits. If you do not attempt to quantify such things and hide behind the excuse of losses being unquantifiable, then you will never get anything done. Road accidents happen everyday, so do we ban motor vehicles? No! Like it or not, we have to attempt to put values on such things. That's how society deals with unlimited wants and limited resources.
Nagging doubt in my mind:
Sometimes I really wonder whether Government polices are really so good that I support them, or I have been totally brain washed into believing so, or I am totally ignorant and stupid. :S :S :S
Thursday, April 21, 2005
I hate idiots
Yeah so United lost 1-0 to Everton.
And the first nickname that I saw on MSN was "We need a new manager".
Kan ni na be chao jibye. Fucking muppets.
Yeah so United are going to finish third for the second year running.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
United had indulged Sir Alex with nearly 50 million pounds last summer with nothing to show for it.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
How many teams can claim to have an FA Cup final to look forward to in a disappointing season?
How many supporters can claim to have seen their favourite team lift the Champions League trophy in their lifetimes? How many supporters can claim to have seen their team won 3 league titles consecutively? How many teams had won double doubles?
Fucking ingrateful bastards. Sir Alex is a legend and he had earned his right to decide when he should go.
When he does go, these very same people will be the ones to lament that he should never have left in the first place.
I hate ingrateful muppets.
And the first nickname that I saw on MSN was "We need a new manager".
Kan ni na be chao jibye. Fucking muppets.
Yeah so United are going to finish third for the second year running.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
United had indulged Sir Alex with nearly 50 million pounds last summer with nothing to show for it.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
How many teams can claim to have an FA Cup final to look forward to in a disappointing season?
How many supporters can claim to have seen their favourite team lift the Champions League trophy in their lifetimes? How many supporters can claim to have seen their team won 3 league titles consecutively? How many teams had won double doubles?
Fucking ingrateful bastards. Sir Alex is a legend and he had earned his right to decide when he should go.
When he does go, these very same people will be the ones to lament that he should never have left in the first place.
I hate ingrateful muppets.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
FA Cup Semi Cardiff Millenium Stadium 170405
Instead of revising for my exams, I found myself in Cardiff yesterday for the Cup semi. But well worth the money and time spent, even though the weather was utter crap. Just osme pictures, might talk more about the whole day if I have time (or maybe I am just humji that someone will say that I waste tax payers' money on football matches :S)
The weather started off well enough as shown by this picture. London St Pancras train station, just outside where I live.
What do you get when you have a square outside a stdium before a match? English football fans drinking beer, and singing and kicking footballs into the air! (The point could have been better substantiated if I had told you all about Milan, but will do it after exams :P)
Proof of my revision: The picture belows demonstrates the principle of minimum differentiation in Hoteling's linear city model.
Oh and the Welsh actually have their own language. Not too sure why though...
This year is supposed to be Cardiff's centenary year. Hmm does that mean when Singapore was founded by Raffles Cardiff had not appeared yet?
I think I do not need to explain why Newcastle has the nickname the Barcodes : They're here...
They're there...
They're everywhere!
River Taff and the Millenium Stadium. My third pilgrimage now...
Helicopter in the air
Welcome to the Millenium Stadium...
and the match today is between Newcastle United and Manchester United.
Here we see the lads from Manchester warming up...
and the Newcastle fans trying their best to imitate Anfield.
The Millenium Stadium really is quite an impressive arena, even if the acoustics is not too good. Oh dear my stadium fetish is kicking in again...
Kickoff!
And Scholes scores the crucial second goal just before halftime:
Celebrating Ruud's second goal. Really glad to see him score again. Players who just want to play for United are just that bit more special...
United players applauding their fans after the game.
The weather started off well enough as shown by this picture. London St Pancras train station, just outside where I live.
What do you get when you have a square outside a stdium before a match? English football fans drinking beer, and singing and kicking footballs into the air! (The point could have been better substantiated if I had told you all about Milan, but will do it after exams :P)
Proof of my revision: The picture belows demonstrates the principle of minimum differentiation in Hoteling's linear city model.
Oh and the Welsh actually have their own language. Not too sure why though...
This year is supposed to be Cardiff's centenary year. Hmm does that mean when Singapore was founded by Raffles Cardiff had not appeared yet?
I think I do not need to explain why Newcastle has the nickname the Barcodes : They're here...
They're there...
They're everywhere!
River Taff and the Millenium Stadium. My third pilgrimage now...
Helicopter in the air
Welcome to the Millenium Stadium...
and the match today is between Newcastle United and Manchester United.
Here we see the lads from Manchester warming up...
and the Newcastle fans trying their best to imitate Anfield.
The Millenium Stadium really is quite an impressive arena, even if the acoustics is not too good. Oh dear my stadium fetish is kicking in again...
Kickoff!
And Scholes scores the crucial second goal just before halftime:
Celebrating Ruud's second goal. Really glad to see him score again. Players who just want to play for United are just that bit more special...
United players applauding their fans after the game.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Warning: Blog is imperfect substitute for diary
Jia lat lah, so scary! Imagine walking down Orchard Road and then suddenly got a random guy point to you and say "eh are you the racist scholar?" :S And by the way I know who this guy is.
And those of you reading my blog maybe can tell me next time if I wrote anything which may cause an uproar. Can't afford to be sent to jail or something :S Or maybe I should just stop this blog.
From The Straits Times:
April 17, 2005
Scholar under fire for racist blog entries
PSC scholarship holder studying in US removes offending remarks and says sorry; his shocked family here also apologises. PSC investigating issue
By Jeremy Au Yong
THE Public Service Commission (PSC) is investigating one of its scholarship holders for putting racist remarks on his Internet site.
Maths major Chua Cheng Zhan, 21, has since taken the material off his website and replaced it with a profuse apology. His shocked family has also apologised on his behalf.
Mr Chua, a third-year student at Northwestern University in Illinois, made disparaging remarks about other races on his personal online journal or weblog.
Since then, at least two forums have been discussing his comments and one angry Net user even e-mailed the PSC to complain.
When contacted, the commission would only say that it was investigating the issue.
Much of the flak Mr Chua is receiving seems to stem from three errant posts among the hundreds on his weblog.
He used words like 'repulsive' to describe some races, and talked about their 'irksome features'.
This issue has come just a few weeks after a Nanyang Technological University student sparked debates when he remarked at a public forum that watching a man hold the hand of a woman with a different skin colour 'made his skin crawl'.
Those who know Mr Chua, who has a younger brother and sister, said it was out of character of him. By all accounts, he is an accomplished scholar.
The former Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Junior College student has a spotless academic record. He scored full distinctions for his A levels and is now maintaining a 3.8 grade-point average at university.
He is also heavily involved in student leadership positions at Northwestern University and has been very active in volunteer work.
So what got into him?
He said: 'I guess I was not myself when I wrote those things. I don't use my own persona when I write on my blog. I realise they were in very poor taste and I deeply regret my actions. I am not like that.'
The weblog, he added, was never meant to be read by anyone but his closest friends. He had locked the site with a password but now admits it may have been too easy to crack.
He added: 'I don't know who cracked it, or who would even want to.'
Somebody did, and spread the word about it on Net forums.
Many Internet users have posted angry messages calling him names. Some have even asked that his scholarship be revoked. One, calling himself thesaint888, said: 'The thought that a racist is using public money frivolously while casting his racial slurs around absolutely makes my blood boil.'
Another, Juliet Chan, actually compiled a dossier of the posts and e-mailed them to the PSC and the media. In her e-mail, she wrote: 'His utter disdain for minority races here in Singapore is worrying and completely unacceptable for a potential civil servant.'
The Sunday Times tried to contact Juliet several times but she did not reply to the e-mail.
Not all Net users, though, are calling for his head.
One, called jane, wrote: 'They (racist comments) certainly weren't meant to perpetuate racial hatred, neither were they a real reflection on what the writer really feels.
'In fact, any sane person reading it would know they were just made in jest, and were meant to be read by people who would know and put his comments in their proper context.'
Mr Chua's friends and family say the comments were completely unlike him.
His father, 51-year-old Larry Chua, managing director of an investment company, said: 'He's a racist? He volunteered for three months, teaching English in Nepal at his own expense. He volunteered to teach English to Vietnamese and Hispanic immigrants in the United States. You can draw your own conclusions.'
Mr Daniel Quek, 22, who attended Hwa Chong with Mr Chua and who is now studying in the University of Illinois, said: 'I never once thought of him as racist. He's always been a nice, cheerful guy.'
Now, Mr Chua and his family just want to put the matter behind them. He said: 'I really regret posting what I did. I admit I did something wrong and I am very, very sorry.'
And those of you reading my blog maybe can tell me next time if I wrote anything which may cause an uproar. Can't afford to be sent to jail or something :S Or maybe I should just stop this blog.
From The Straits Times:
April 17, 2005
Scholar under fire for racist blog entries
PSC scholarship holder studying in US removes offending remarks and says sorry; his shocked family here also apologises. PSC investigating issue
By Jeremy Au Yong
THE Public Service Commission (PSC) is investigating one of its scholarship holders for putting racist remarks on his Internet site.
Maths major Chua Cheng Zhan, 21, has since taken the material off his website and replaced it with a profuse apology. His shocked family has also apologised on his behalf.
Mr Chua, a third-year student at Northwestern University in Illinois, made disparaging remarks about other races on his personal online journal or weblog.
Since then, at least two forums have been discussing his comments and one angry Net user even e-mailed the PSC to complain.
When contacted, the commission would only say that it was investigating the issue.
Much of the flak Mr Chua is receiving seems to stem from three errant posts among the hundreds on his weblog.
He used words like 'repulsive' to describe some races, and talked about their 'irksome features'.
This issue has come just a few weeks after a Nanyang Technological University student sparked debates when he remarked at a public forum that watching a man hold the hand of a woman with a different skin colour 'made his skin crawl'.
Those who know Mr Chua, who has a younger brother and sister, said it was out of character of him. By all accounts, he is an accomplished scholar.
The former Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Junior College student has a spotless academic record. He scored full distinctions for his A levels and is now maintaining a 3.8 grade-point average at university.
He is also heavily involved in student leadership positions at Northwestern University and has been very active in volunteer work.
So what got into him?
He said: 'I guess I was not myself when I wrote those things. I don't use my own persona when I write on my blog. I realise they were in very poor taste and I deeply regret my actions. I am not like that.'
The weblog, he added, was never meant to be read by anyone but his closest friends. He had locked the site with a password but now admits it may have been too easy to crack.
He added: 'I don't know who cracked it, or who would even want to.'
Somebody did, and spread the word about it on Net forums.
Many Internet users have posted angry messages calling him names. Some have even asked that his scholarship be revoked. One, calling himself thesaint888, said: 'The thought that a racist is using public money frivolously while casting his racial slurs around absolutely makes my blood boil.'
Another, Juliet Chan, actually compiled a dossier of the posts and e-mailed them to the PSC and the media. In her e-mail, she wrote: 'His utter disdain for minority races here in Singapore is worrying and completely unacceptable for a potential civil servant.'
The Sunday Times tried to contact Juliet several times but she did not reply to the e-mail.
Not all Net users, though, are calling for his head.
One, called jane, wrote: 'They (racist comments) certainly weren't meant to perpetuate racial hatred, neither were they a real reflection on what the writer really feels.
'In fact, any sane person reading it would know they were just made in jest, and were meant to be read by people who would know and put his comments in their proper context.'
Mr Chua's friends and family say the comments were completely unlike him.
His father, 51-year-old Larry Chua, managing director of an investment company, said: 'He's a racist? He volunteered for three months, teaching English in Nepal at his own expense. He volunteered to teach English to Vietnamese and Hispanic immigrants in the United States. You can draw your own conclusions.'
Mr Daniel Quek, 22, who attended Hwa Chong with Mr Chua and who is now studying in the University of Illinois, said: 'I never once thought of him as racist. He's always been a nice, cheerful guy.'
Now, Mr Chua and his family just want to put the matter behind them. He said: 'I really regret posting what I did. I admit I did something wrong and I am very, very sorry.'
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Game book
Do you all still remember those game books last time? You flipped the first page, read the scenario and chose from one of the 2 options. Then according to your option you flipped to the relevant page and repeated the process until you won or were killed. Some options get you to the same place in the end, but other options lead you to a different outcome.
Sometimes life is like a gamebook. At each juncture you are presented with options, and you chose the one that you thought was the best and moved on. At the end of the day, when you look back and flipped back a few steps, you realise that maybe if you had chose the alternative option 3 steps back, you would have won. But you chose the wrong one, and you are left to regret it. And almost inevitably, the wrong option you chose was to NOT DO something.
But alas, life isn't like a gamebook, you can't cheat and flip back the pages. What can you do when the more steps you take, the futher away you get from winning the game, just because of that wrong turn you took 2 steps ago? Is there anyway to get back?
Sometimes you can second guess yourself too much.
------------------------------------------------------
Ok so Elvin pointed out to me the LMTBs are for next season. Damn so I do have a decision to make. Damn damn damn. Why am I not rich?
Sometimes life is like a gamebook. At each juncture you are presented with options, and you chose the one that you thought was the best and moved on. At the end of the day, when you look back and flipped back a few steps, you realise that maybe if you had chose the alternative option 3 steps back, you would have won. But you chose the wrong one, and you are left to regret it. And almost inevitably, the wrong option you chose was to NOT DO something.
But alas, life isn't like a gamebook, you can't cheat and flip back the pages. What can you do when the more steps you take, the futher away you get from winning the game, just because of that wrong turn you took 2 steps ago? Is there anyway to get back?
Sometimes you can second guess yourself too much.
------------------------------------------------------
Ok so Elvin pointed out to me the LMTBs are for next season. Damn so I do have a decision to make. Damn damn damn. Why am I not rich?
Friday, April 15, 2005
I want to run and cycle
What I miss right now:
I miss the 4 km East Coast run from VJ to Bedok jetty. How I need to run along the jetty, feeling the sea breeze in my hair and watching people having fun fishing or just camping. I must admit I hated it when cross country training was in full swing, but once the Nationals ended, it became a great stress reliever for me. There were no timings to meet, and I could just sit down at the jetty for as long as I like, until I felt sufficiently refreshed. Sometimes I ran with Tong Leng, sometimes I ran with Sylvester. And I also remember the shorter runs with Elvin. This I guess is one of the demerits of being in a concrete jungle like London.
You never know what you have until you have lost them.
And while looking for pictures of East Coast Park. I found this website:
Singapore Cycling
I wanted to cycle to Kranji last summer but never got down to doing it. To think there were actually proper routes! I want to do the Reservoir and Kranji routes!
I miss the 4 km East Coast run from VJ to Bedok jetty. How I need to run along the jetty, feeling the sea breeze in my hair and watching people having fun fishing or just camping. I must admit I hated it when cross country training was in full swing, but once the Nationals ended, it became a great stress reliever for me. There were no timings to meet, and I could just sit down at the jetty for as long as I like, until I felt sufficiently refreshed. Sometimes I ran with Tong Leng, sometimes I ran with Sylvester. And I also remember the shorter runs with Elvin. This I guess is one of the demerits of being in a concrete jungle like London.
You never know what you have until you have lost them.
And while looking for pictures of East Coast Park. I found this website:
Singapore Cycling
I wanted to cycle to Kranji last summer but never got down to doing it. To think there were actually proper routes! I want to do the Reservoir and Kranji routes!
When will they ever learn?
Something tells me I should feel very lucky to come back from San Siro in one piece....
Read the report here
But looking back, if I had the chance, I would still go again.
You never regret what you had done, you only regret what you did not do.
Read the report here
But looking back, if I had the chance, I would still go again.
You never regret what you had done, you only regret what you did not do.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
I hate uncertainty!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! I am god damn fucking sure I qualify! Can somebody tell me I will do Masters next year so that I can apply for it now?!?!? 456 pounds is too big a sum to just apply first and see how!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Another headache!!!
From Manutd.com :
NEW LEAGUE MATCH TICKET BOOKS - SEASON 2005/2006
Further to research undertaken about One united membership this season in which members stated that they wanted their loyalty to be recognised and in advance of the proposed stadium development due to be completed by August 2006, we are pleased to announce that we are offering 2,500 new League Match Ticket Books to One United Members who meet a qualifying criteria. This will guarantee you a ticket for every Premier League Home game from the start of season 2005/6 but will not carry any ticket rights to Manchester United away games, including semi and/or final ties.
Members who have applied for at least 25 of the last 50 home games (Premier League, Domestic and European) from the last 2 seasons, (from Bolton wanderers on Saturday 16th August 2003 through to Fulham on Saturday 19th March 2005) are invited to register an application by telephoning the Ticket Order Line on 0870 442 1999 from 9am on Wednesday 20th April through to 9am on Monday 25th April. This is a 24 hour service and new books will not be allocated on a first come first served basis. In the event of being oversubscribed an automated ballot would take place with successful applicants being notified in writing and forwarded an application form and terms & conditions for completion.
All registrations must include a debit/credit card (no administration fee added to booking), however you will have the opportunity to select an alternative method of card type if you are successful.
All books will be situated in North Stand Tier 3 priced £456.00 (with a half price concession available to over 65s) these books may not be suitable for persons who have difficulty climbing or suffering from vertigo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Ok got all riled up for nothing. No decision to make actually. Even if I do Masters I will only be here until Sep 2006. Still what a bummer....
From Manutd.com :
NEW LEAGUE MATCH TICKET BOOKS - SEASON 2005/2006
Further to research undertaken about One united membership this season in which members stated that they wanted their loyalty to be recognised and in advance of the proposed stadium development due to be completed by August 2006, we are pleased to announce that we are offering 2,500 new League Match Ticket Books to One United Members who meet a qualifying criteria. This will guarantee you a ticket for every Premier League Home game from the start of season 2005/6 but will not carry any ticket rights to Manchester United away games, including semi and/or final ties.
Members who have applied for at least 25 of the last 50 home games (Premier League, Domestic and European) from the last 2 seasons, (from Bolton wanderers on Saturday 16th August 2003 through to Fulham on Saturday 19th March 2005) are invited to register an application by telephoning the Ticket Order Line on 0870 442 1999 from 9am on Wednesday 20th April through to 9am on Monday 25th April. This is a 24 hour service and new books will not be allocated on a first come first served basis. In the event of being oversubscribed an automated ballot would take place with successful applicants being notified in writing and forwarded an application form and terms & conditions for completion.
All registrations must include a debit/credit card (no administration fee added to booking), however you will have the opportunity to select an alternative method of card type if you are successful.
All books will be situated in North Stand Tier 3 priced £456.00 (with a half price concession available to over 65s) these books may not be suitable for persons who have difficulty climbing or suffering from vertigo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Ok got all riled up for nothing. No decision to make actually. Even if I do Masters I will only be here until Sep 2006. Still what a bummer....
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Song and Gif
Found the above interesting gif somewhere on livejournal. It can be found here. Hope the owner doesn't sue me.
And nice song eh? One of my favourites now...
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
I just want to rest...
I really don't need the exams to be just around the corner. I really need some time when I can just lie in bed and do NOTHING. I need a breather....
From Manutd.com :
I'll End My Career At United - Ruud
Ruud Wants To Finish Career At United
Reds striker Ruud van Nistelrooy wants to end his playing career at Manchester United.
The 28-year-old Dutchman began full training this week after a two-and-a-half month injury lay-off, and hopes to remain at Old Trafford for the rest of his playing days.
In January 2004, van Nistelrooy extended his current contract until June 2008, a deal that expires a day before his 32nd birthday. In an in-depth interview with Soccer Digest: Best 50 Strikers Magazine, Ruud highlighted his devotion to United.
"I feel at home in a place with such strong traditions," he said. "I don’t see why I shouldn’t spend the rest of my playing days here.
"The moment I had signed my five-year contract at Manchester United," Ruud recalls of the day he signed, "the chairman at the time, Martin Edwards, took me to the boardroom where a directors' meeting was in progress."'Gentlemen', he said when he opened the door, 'may I present to you our new centre-forward, Ruud van Nistelrooy'. They all stood and congratulated me. I shook hands with all of them, Sir Bobby Charlton last of all. When he said: 'Glad you're finally here, son', I got goose bumps all over my body."
The loyalty of United's supporters and the rich history of former players and past trophy successes makes the club feel like home for van Nistelrooy.
"I drive down the A56 straight to Old Trafford," he says. "Between two church towers in the distance, I can already see the two biggest stands. When I close my eyes, I can recall that mental picture no matter where I am.
"I turn into Sir Matt Busby Way and cross the square full of fans. Whenever a player's car passes, the square bubbles with excitement. Through a crowd of thousands of people I make it to the players' car park. Every match the people are there again. And they were already there when George Best and Bobby Charlton were playing for the club."
Van Nistelrooy, who is 29 this summer, is approaching the peak of his playing career. Although he has failed to top the phenomenal 44 goals he scored during his second season – the title-winning campaign of 2002/03 – he is yet to fall below the 30-goal barrier.
It will prove a tall order to continue that record this term. Twelve goals in 14 games this season is as exemplary as you would expect from the prolific forward. But, having missed the first month of the season and another 12 weeks recently, breaking the 20-goal mark is an achievable, yet still incredible, target.The Dutchman believes his ruthlessness in front of goal stems partly from a lesson early on in his career from Ruud Gullit.
"When I was younger, I tended to want to score beautiful goals, you know. The esthetics seemed more important than the result."A funny thing happened once. Ruud Gullit did his coaching apprenticeship at one of my former clubs, Heerenveen, when I was playing there. I remember lobbing a shot that hit the crossbar and proudly looked at Gullit: 'Nice one, eh?' "
All he said was: 'It certainly was nice, but it should have gone in.' Although it was simple, he was right - he was absolutely right." Van Nistelrooy took Gullit's advice - "If you want to be a striker who performs at the highest level, every chance that can go in, should go in." – and remembers it to this day.
The striker's belief in his own ability could not be described as an arrogance, especially at the modesty he displays in showing why is considered among the world's top strikers.
"I never for a minute think things will happen naturally. Nothing comes naturally to me," he says. "I do not belong in that exceptional class of player that can operate occasionally at less than 100 per cent. I know I would not get away with that.
"I have that same drive every time. Giving less then 100 per cent is not really an option for me. As the years have gone by, I have started to take football more and more seriously. "I try to do the maximum for every match. I work hard, I train hard and I prepare myself in detail for every game. I do everything to create the perfect circumstances to perform as well as possible."
The sooner the intimidating shouts of "Ruud, Ruud, Ruud" can be heard reverberating around Old Trafford the better, and with a last 16 Champions League tie with AC Milan looming, his return is a necessity.
Ruud van Nistelrooy was speaking in an interview with Soccer Digest: Best 50 Strikers Magazine which is on sale from 3 March.Report by Ben Hibbs.
From Manutd.com :
I'll End My Career At United - Ruud
Ruud Wants To Finish Career At United
Reds striker Ruud van Nistelrooy wants to end his playing career at Manchester United.
The 28-year-old Dutchman began full training this week after a two-and-a-half month injury lay-off, and hopes to remain at Old Trafford for the rest of his playing days.
In January 2004, van Nistelrooy extended his current contract until June 2008, a deal that expires a day before his 32nd birthday. In an in-depth interview with Soccer Digest: Best 50 Strikers Magazine, Ruud highlighted his devotion to United.
"I feel at home in a place with such strong traditions," he said. "I don’t see why I shouldn’t spend the rest of my playing days here.
"The moment I had signed my five-year contract at Manchester United," Ruud recalls of the day he signed, "the chairman at the time, Martin Edwards, took me to the boardroom where a directors' meeting was in progress."'Gentlemen', he said when he opened the door, 'may I present to you our new centre-forward, Ruud van Nistelrooy'. They all stood and congratulated me. I shook hands with all of them, Sir Bobby Charlton last of all. When he said: 'Glad you're finally here, son', I got goose bumps all over my body."
The loyalty of United's supporters and the rich history of former players and past trophy successes makes the club feel like home for van Nistelrooy.
"I drive down the A56 straight to Old Trafford," he says. "Between two church towers in the distance, I can already see the two biggest stands. When I close my eyes, I can recall that mental picture no matter where I am.
"I turn into Sir Matt Busby Way and cross the square full of fans. Whenever a player's car passes, the square bubbles with excitement. Through a crowd of thousands of people I make it to the players' car park. Every match the people are there again. And they were already there when George Best and Bobby Charlton were playing for the club."
Van Nistelrooy, who is 29 this summer, is approaching the peak of his playing career. Although he has failed to top the phenomenal 44 goals he scored during his second season – the title-winning campaign of 2002/03 – he is yet to fall below the 30-goal barrier.
It will prove a tall order to continue that record this term. Twelve goals in 14 games this season is as exemplary as you would expect from the prolific forward. But, having missed the first month of the season and another 12 weeks recently, breaking the 20-goal mark is an achievable, yet still incredible, target.The Dutchman believes his ruthlessness in front of goal stems partly from a lesson early on in his career from Ruud Gullit.
"When I was younger, I tended to want to score beautiful goals, you know. The esthetics seemed more important than the result."A funny thing happened once. Ruud Gullit did his coaching apprenticeship at one of my former clubs, Heerenveen, when I was playing there. I remember lobbing a shot that hit the crossbar and proudly looked at Gullit: 'Nice one, eh?' "
All he said was: 'It certainly was nice, but it should have gone in.' Although it was simple, he was right - he was absolutely right." Van Nistelrooy took Gullit's advice - "If you want to be a striker who performs at the highest level, every chance that can go in, should go in." – and remembers it to this day.
The striker's belief in his own ability could not be described as an arrogance, especially at the modesty he displays in showing why is considered among the world's top strikers.
"I never for a minute think things will happen naturally. Nothing comes naturally to me," he says. "I do not belong in that exceptional class of player that can operate occasionally at less than 100 per cent. I know I would not get away with that.
"I have that same drive every time. Giving less then 100 per cent is not really an option for me. As the years have gone by, I have started to take football more and more seriously. "I try to do the maximum for every match. I work hard, I train hard and I prepare myself in detail for every game. I do everything to create the perfect circumstances to perform as well as possible."
The sooner the intimidating shouts of "Ruud, Ruud, Ruud" can be heard reverberating around Old Trafford the better, and with a last 16 Champions League tie with AC Milan looming, his return is a necessity.
Ruud van Nistelrooy was speaking in an interview with Soccer Digest: Best 50 Strikers Magazine which is on sale from 3 March.Report by Ben Hibbs.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Give up? Or stay the course?
And so it's all over. Aristotle Toh wins yet again! And the Russian club from West London are going to be champions for the first time in 50 years.
FUCK.
Perhaps it really is true, they have given up giving their best now since they can't motivate themselves to fight for second place. Of course as supporters, one would feel pissed off if any player comes out with that line, but isn't that what always happens in real life?
When you have no realistic chance at the big prize (though still mathematically possible), would you still go all out JUST to see if you could make a difference? To see if the winds of luck suddenly change and you will get the big prize at the end of the day?
Would you expend all your energy to find out?
Perhaps its the economist in me, but I don't think I will. Once the marginal costs exceed the marginal benefits, I stop, even if there is still positive marginal benefit.
Do you give up before the end?
As for Man United, what can I say? I am still going to Cardiff next Sunday full of hope. I am still to the (originally supposed to be last but the Chelsea game is now after that) league game against West Brom on 7th May, 2 days before I have 2 papers on 9th May. I don't fucking give a damn about glory, loving something is forever. United are still third, much luckier than some other teams...
We'll keep the Red flag flying high, cos Man United will never die...
FUCK.
Perhaps it really is true, they have given up giving their best now since they can't motivate themselves to fight for second place. Of course as supporters, one would feel pissed off if any player comes out with that line, but isn't that what always happens in real life?
When you have no realistic chance at the big prize (though still mathematically possible), would you still go all out JUST to see if you could make a difference? To see if the winds of luck suddenly change and you will get the big prize at the end of the day?
Would you expend all your energy to find out?
Perhaps its the economist in me, but I don't think I will. Once the marginal costs exceed the marginal benefits, I stop, even if there is still positive marginal benefit.
Do you give up before the end?
As for Man United, what can I say? I am still going to Cardiff next Sunday full of hope. I am still to the (originally supposed to be last but the Chelsea game is now after that) league game against West Brom on 7th May, 2 days before I have 2 papers on 9th May. I don't fucking give a damn about glory, loving something is forever. United are still third, much luckier than some other teams...
We'll keep the Red flag flying high, cos Man United will never die...
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Fly kite
A wise man said this to me 2 days ago:
kite flying theory is when jioing a ber....it is like flying a kite.....cannot alwiz pull hard hard...the kite will fall.....sometimes muz let go then the kite can fly high high...but then muz noe when to pull back again....or else will lose sight of the kite
*nods in agreement while stroking my chin*
And it certainly doesn't apply just to kaoing girls. It also applies to all other relationships I guess. Everybody needs their own space and if you are overly enthu, some people might just freak out. But if you let go too much, then you enter the vicious cycle of drifting further and further and feeling it harder and harder to maintain contact.
I must admit, after 22 years on Planet earth, I am no closer to finding the optimum effort to put into maintaining a relationship. It's always either too enthu, or too bo chup.
And sometimes things aren't as clear cut. Have you ever spared a thought for the kite? Does the kite really want to be connected to you by a string? Would it be happier if it was just drifting high up in the sky with no constraints? If it was happier that way, then perhaps you should just cut off the string and let it go? Even if it hurts like mad when you do so?
What would you do?
kite flying theory is when jioing a ber....it is like flying a kite.....cannot alwiz pull hard hard...the kite will fall.....sometimes muz let go then the kite can fly high high...but then muz noe when to pull back again....or else will lose sight of the kite
*nods in agreement while stroking my chin*
And it certainly doesn't apply just to kaoing girls. It also applies to all other relationships I guess. Everybody needs their own space and if you are overly enthu, some people might just freak out. But if you let go too much, then you enter the vicious cycle of drifting further and further and feeling it harder and harder to maintain contact.
I must admit, after 22 years on Planet earth, I am no closer to finding the optimum effort to put into maintaining a relationship. It's always either too enthu, or too bo chup.
And sometimes things aren't as clear cut. Have you ever spared a thought for the kite? Does the kite really want to be connected to you by a string? Would it be happier if it was just drifting high up in the sky with no constraints? If it was happier that way, then perhaps you should just cut off the string and let it go? Even if it hurts like mad when you do so?
What would you do?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Rules
You know what they are, they are everywhere. And as Singaporeans, we certainly know a thing or two about rules. Cannot spit, cannot litter, cannot paste notices on bus stops etc.
There's nothing wrong with rules, generally they make for a better place to live in if everybody follows them. I certainly don't like to break rules. In fact, I can't break rules, for I seem to have a CCTV right above my head. Whenever I break rules, *poof* suddenly all the punishments start to be meted out. A lot of people had done the same thing last week and gotten away with it. Just when TosH tries it, the punishments start to be given out. And then after TosH gets punished, and he stays on the straight and narrow, other people start to get away with it again.
Don't believe me? Just ask Elvin and Tong Leng. Everybody copies or don't do homework in VS and get away with it. Just when TosH doesn't hand in ONE freaking piece of homework, the teacher suddenly checks who did not hand in and scolds him. Everybody pon tang school to study for exams, and just the day when TosH pon tangs, the form teacher decided to get pissed off with the situationand marks attendance and scolds those who skipped school. When kenna turn out in NS, everybody has no time to tie the boot laces and just tuck it underneath the gutter. But guess who will be the only one caught? TosH again. Everybody tries 101 ways to not pay the full bus fare, but when TosH does it, you can bet your iPod (again) that he will be the first to be caught and fined.
And so poor TosH has no choice but to follow whatever rules there are. He can't break them, for he will be punished, and no good will come out of it. But yet, he has to watch others flout every single rule there is and go unpunished. Not only do they go unpunished, the one up there seems to like them too and confers upon them a GOD DAMN FUCKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. The honest hard working fella tries to do the correct thing all the time, but who fucking cares? Others are able to break the rules and shit on his head and run off with the prize, leaving TosH to eat dust.
Should I return to the days of breaking rules? Has the CCTV above me disappeared?
It might all be too late...
There's nothing wrong with rules, generally they make for a better place to live in if everybody follows them. I certainly don't like to break rules. In fact, I can't break rules, for I seem to have a CCTV right above my head. Whenever I break rules, *poof* suddenly all the punishments start to be meted out. A lot of people had done the same thing last week and gotten away with it. Just when TosH tries it, the punishments start to be given out. And then after TosH gets punished, and he stays on the straight and narrow, other people start to get away with it again.
Don't believe me? Just ask Elvin and Tong Leng. Everybody copies or don't do homework in VS and get away with it. Just when TosH doesn't hand in ONE freaking piece of homework, the teacher suddenly checks who did not hand in and scolds him. Everybody pon tang school to study for exams, and just the day when TosH pon tangs, the form teacher decided to get pissed off with the situationand marks attendance and scolds those who skipped school. When kenna turn out in NS, everybody has no time to tie the boot laces and just tuck it underneath the gutter. But guess who will be the only one caught? TosH again. Everybody tries 101 ways to not pay the full bus fare, but when TosH does it, you can bet your iPod (again) that he will be the first to be caught and fined.
And so poor TosH has no choice but to follow whatever rules there are. He can't break them, for he will be punished, and no good will come out of it. But yet, he has to watch others flout every single rule there is and go unpunished. Not only do they go unpunished, the one up there seems to like them too and confers upon them a GOD DAMN FUCKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. The honest hard working fella tries to do the correct thing all the time, but who fucking cares? Others are able to break the rules and shit on his head and run off with the prize, leaving TosH to eat dust.
Should I return to the days of breaking rules? Has the CCTV above me disappeared?
It might all be too late...
Saturday, April 02, 2005
My favourite song...
Was suddenly reminded of my favourite song just now. Haven't heard it in ages, at least not since my laptop broke down. So which is the song that has the honour of being TosH's favourite?
*Drum rolls*
It's the Hokkien classic ....... Ai Piah Jia Eh Yia!!!
*Applause*
I can still remember humming the song in the back seat of my dad's Mitsubishi Gallant, with the PIE wind blowing through my hair (got Beach Boys feeling or not? :P) Every weekend we were brought to Tampines to visit my grandparents and we had to take the PIE from Toa Payoh. And along the way I always listened to such golden oldies. So much so that I could hum along despite not knowing the exact words.
One particular paragraph of the song goes like this:
Life is,
like the waves on the sea.
Sometimes go up,
sometimes go down.
Good luck,
bad luck,
still must carry on and go to work.
30% is fated,
70% is hard work.
Ai Piah....Jia Eh Yia....
Such simple lyrics, but so not simple meaning. Perfect advice that I should give to myself everyday during this exam period...
Happy mugging everyone!
*Drum rolls*
It's the Hokkien classic ....... Ai Piah Jia Eh Yia!!!
*Applause*
I can still remember humming the song in the back seat of my dad's Mitsubishi Gallant, with the PIE wind blowing through my hair (got Beach Boys feeling or not? :P) Every weekend we were brought to Tampines to visit my grandparents and we had to take the PIE from Toa Payoh. And along the way I always listened to such golden oldies. So much so that I could hum along despite not knowing the exact words.
One particular paragraph of the song goes like this:
Life is,
like the waves on the sea.
Sometimes go up,
sometimes go down.
Good luck,
bad luck,
still must carry on and go to work.
30% is fated,
70% is hard work.
Ai Piah....Jia Eh Yia....
Such simple lyrics, but so not simple meaning. Perfect advice that I should give to myself everyday during this exam period...
Happy mugging everyone!
Friday, April 01, 2005
Warning: Controversial post in second half
Further proof that proactive kbkb works...
MOE initially gave us 330 pounds for a one way ticket back to Singapore in the summer, and it was even supposed to cover excess baggage allowance. WTF? 330 pounds is not enough for even the air ticket itself unless you take ulu ulu airlines like Qatar Airways lor....
And so Miss Guo wrote a formal complaint letter and a few of us signed it and off it was sent to MOE and PSC and wahey! this was the reply we got today:
Dear all,
Thanks for your feedback with regard to the high airfare rates for travelin June/July 05.
We have reviewed the 1-way travel allowance, and is pleased to inform you that the travel allowance from London-Singapore will be increased from 330pounds to 400 pounds. The raise is proposed based on the research onairfares for travel during the June/July period, as well as research onairfare charges provided by MOE/PSC scholars. We hope this helps you in making your ticketing arrangements.
As we have already credited the 330 pounds into your overseas bank account,we will credit the additional 70 pounds into your account in the next 2-3weeks. For your info, please :)Do let me know if you have any other questions!
Hmm...maybe it really is important to give feedback so that changes can be made. I am certainly glad that I wasn't like the typical apathetic Singaporean this time, just whining away without doing anything constructive and pouring cold water all over the effort. Thanks Miss Guo!
Anyway before you guys in Singapore think that I am a greedy blood sucker for tax payers' money, I am not ok. Because 330 pounds is really not enough. I complained when my allowance was cut by 2 months because our courses had ended by then but I never did anything because I fully understood the rationale and felt that the reasons were reasonable. However, this time the amount is really not enough and certainly can't expect everyone to be able to stretch out their hands to their parents to ask for money to top up right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious people you can stop reading this now, because what I am going to write below is not going to be pleasant. Anyway there is this radio station in London called Capital FM and there is this late night show called Capital confessions where callers call in to tell the DJ (and the world) their secrets and ask the DJ for advice or just a listening ear. Yesterday I heard this caller which seemed to have a link to various events that happened in my life recently. This female caller had to leave her family at 18 to live with the guy she loved because her family would not accept the guy due to religious reasons. And now the woman has a kid and still is happily married but the family still would not accept her back. Despite the husband (on seeing his wife suffering from postnatal depression(correct term?)) bringing the newborn to her family's doorstep, the family still would not accept her back. I couldn't help but agree with the DJ when he said that he felt it was a bit sad that the parents could not for once let go of their beliefs and welcome the daughter back. The newborn don't have grandparents as a result, the grandparents can't have their grand son as a result, the wife don't have her parents and the parents don't have their child. How sad is that? Isn't your child one of your most important thing in this world? What can possibly be so powerful to stop you from wanting your own flesh and blood back? I find it really sad that religion (which is supposed to help people find direction, which is supposed to encourage people to do good, well at least all good religions do anyway..) can make some people suffer like this.
Another case in point, my friend had liked this girl for 3 years before now when he finally had the chance to tell her and the girl also liked him. How sweet is that? But guess what the friends of the girl (who is of same religion as her) said?
"Oh, you can't be with him, He is not a. You will sin!"
WHAT THE FUCK???
My friend is true to the girl, he will treat her well, and what's more the girl actually likes him. Why do these people have to play the religion card and attempt to destroy something that is so sweet and innocent? I don't understand it at all. When is loving someone ever a sin? Love makes the world go round!
If people can be fined for making racist comments, perhaps these people should be fined too for being religion-ist.
I am a Buddhist (though not a very good one) and I firmly believe in the principle that you reap what you sow. But if ever one day I had to choose between love for a living human being and religion, you can bet your iPod (with complimentary white ear phones) that I will choose the former anytime. I just do not believe that when I die, the one up there who is going to judge me (whoever he is) is going to say that I will go to Hell, get whipped, get my tongue cut, whatever, just because I LOVED someone.
And this doesn't apply just to religious beliefs, it applies to all sorts of other beliefs as well. If you care more about your own beliefs and make your loved ones suffer in the process, then it is truly a very sad day...
Love makes the world go round, love your fellow human beings, not some obscure being or belief which at the end of the day might turn out to be irrelevant....
P.S. I am not looking to argue with anyone, this is my own bloody blog so I will say what I will. I did not shaft this down your throat and I included a warning in front. So if you want to argue, get lost.
MOE initially gave us 330 pounds for a one way ticket back to Singapore in the summer, and it was even supposed to cover excess baggage allowance. WTF? 330 pounds is not enough for even the air ticket itself unless you take ulu ulu airlines like Qatar Airways lor....
And so Miss Guo wrote a formal complaint letter and a few of us signed it and off it was sent to MOE and PSC and wahey! this was the reply we got today:
Dear all,
Thanks for your feedback with regard to the high airfare rates for travelin June/July 05.
We have reviewed the 1-way travel allowance, and is pleased to inform you that the travel allowance from London-Singapore will be increased from 330pounds to 400 pounds. The raise is proposed based on the research onairfares for travel during the June/July period, as well as research onairfare charges provided by MOE/PSC scholars. We hope this helps you in making your ticketing arrangements.
As we have already credited the 330 pounds into your overseas bank account,we will credit the additional 70 pounds into your account in the next 2-3weeks. For your info, please :)Do let me know if you have any other questions!
Hmm...maybe it really is important to give feedback so that changes can be made. I am certainly glad that I wasn't like the typical apathetic Singaporean this time, just whining away without doing anything constructive and pouring cold water all over the effort. Thanks Miss Guo!
Anyway before you guys in Singapore think that I am a greedy blood sucker for tax payers' money, I am not ok. Because 330 pounds is really not enough. I complained when my allowance was cut by 2 months because our courses had ended by then but I never did anything because I fully understood the rationale and felt that the reasons were reasonable. However, this time the amount is really not enough and certainly can't expect everyone to be able to stretch out their hands to their parents to ask for money to top up right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious people you can stop reading this now, because what I am going to write below is not going to be pleasant. Anyway there is this radio station in London called Capital FM and there is this late night show called Capital confessions where callers call in to tell the DJ (and the world) their secrets and ask the DJ for advice or just a listening ear. Yesterday I heard this caller which seemed to have a link to various events that happened in my life recently. This female caller had to leave her family at 18 to live with the guy she loved because her family would not accept the guy due to religious reasons. And now the woman has a kid and still is happily married but the family still would not accept her back. Despite the husband (on seeing his wife suffering from postnatal depression(correct term?)) bringing the newborn to her family's doorstep, the family still would not accept her back. I couldn't help but agree with the DJ when he said that he felt it was a bit sad that the parents could not for once let go of their beliefs and welcome the daughter back. The newborn don't have grandparents as a result, the grandparents can't have their grand son as a result, the wife don't have her parents and the parents don't have their child. How sad is that? Isn't your child one of your most important thing in this world? What can possibly be so powerful to stop you from wanting your own flesh and blood back? I find it really sad that religion (which is supposed to help people find direction, which is supposed to encourage people to do good, well at least all good religions do anyway..) can make some people suffer like this.
Another case in point, my friend had liked this girl for 3 years before now when he finally had the chance to tell her and the girl also liked him. How sweet is that? But guess what the friends of the girl (who is of same religion as her) said?
"Oh, you can't be with him, He is not a
WHAT THE FUCK???
My friend is true to the girl, he will treat her well, and what's more the girl actually likes him. Why do these people have to play the religion card and attempt to destroy something that is so sweet and innocent? I don't understand it at all. When is loving someone ever a sin? Love makes the world go round!
If people can be fined for making racist comments, perhaps these people should be fined too for being religion-ist.
I am a Buddhist (though not a very good one) and I firmly believe in the principle that you reap what you sow. But if ever one day I had to choose between love for a living human being and religion, you can bet your iPod (with complimentary white ear phones) that I will choose the former anytime. I just do not believe that when I die, the one up there who is going to judge me (whoever he is) is going to say that I will go to Hell, get whipped, get my tongue cut, whatever, just because I LOVED someone.
And this doesn't apply just to religious beliefs, it applies to all sorts of other beliefs as well. If you care more about your own beliefs and make your loved ones suffer in the process, then it is truly a very sad day...
Love makes the world go round, love your fellow human beings, not some obscure being or belief which at the end of the day might turn out to be irrelevant....
P.S. I am not looking to argue with anyone, this is my own bloody blog so I will say what I will. I did not shaft this down your throat and I included a warning in front. So if you want to argue, get lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)