sw_fox

Exactly, and interest payments will help reduce our net profit and therefore our tax burden, which presumably there will be quite a hefty one due to selling assets. In essence, I’m not worried at all by this development. Without being a Man City or Newcastle of this world, and particularly after relegation, this is a relatively sensible way to run the business. Obviously better to be debt free as a club. But from the business side debt isn’t necessarily something to be afraid of if it helps cash flow and allows us to make the investments we need at the time we need to.

Anyone stopped to think this is probably just a finance facility that we can just draw down if we have cash flow issues? I’m a director of a company and this is exactly what we do for invoices from our customers to help with cash flow. Most of the time we don’t need it but it’s helpful to have if needed - it may be the same for the club. All well and good having another club owing you x amount but if you need to pay salaries or big ticket items like transfers then it’s good to know you can get your hands on the cash quickly…

Living in South London the only positive to relegation is Millwall away 🤠

Does everyone’s ticket say the same time as mine also says 15.15-15.45? Or is it staggered by where you are in the ground?

I am also looking for 2 x adult tickets for this game. Will be happy to collect and pay cash, back in Leicester from 21 Dec.

And finally, I would like to ask this to pro-prohibitionists. Has prohibiton worked?

I guarantee you, if you made the effort you could get hold of some. Just go down to a pub at a weekend and follow your nose, it really ain't hard. If you had the intention to try some then it would be really easy. And if you think prohibition actually makes it harder to get hold of drugs then you really are clueless,. And yes there is a lack of education on drugs. For a start it is not even on the national curriculum, for another thing most of the education consisits of the "Drugs are bad mmmmkay" and the "just say no" sort. And finally those that would be getting into drugs are more likely to be skiving off school the very time these lessons would be taking place. if users are informed of the risks at the moment of purchase it works two ways: 1)It targets the people who need the education directly, as they are the ones having a smoke 2)It is more likely to sink in if it the information is given to them by a medical professional (eg a pharmacist) And finally when it comes to cigarettes, the actual cost of manufacturing cigarettes is pennies, and the tax on them is exceedingly high. The high tax has led to a black market. The same would be true of cannabis if legalised at taxed. The government would have to make sure that they balanced the taxation demand with the need to stop the blackmarket. Cannabis is expensive at the moment due to the risk dealers encounter with regards to the law. I have no reason to doubt that legal cannabis would be far cheaper than illicit at the moment. There is also the point that yes there are criminals selling cigarettes but the vast vast vast majority of tobacco is sold over the counter, legally and brings in billions in revenue every year.

All of you pro prohibitionists have you ever thought this- Has prohibition worked? If you scour your brains I am sure that you would know SOMEONE that if you asked you could get some weed from, if you were that way inclined. And lets say you were under 18, would a dealer care (most likely not, they would just want your money). Therefore would it not be better to have the state regulating who could get their hands on it(like alcohol/cigarettes), and making sure that users are well informed of the risks before they are even supplied with the drug by state sponsored means? Another argument- why should the criminals be making the money off the drug, when the NHS (and by default me and you as taxpayers) then have to pick up the bill that the drug then creates in terms of healthcare. Surely if the state were able to recoup some of the losses through taxation (like cigarettes) then it would benefit everybody as there would be more money leftover to spend on other conditions. I have many more of these morality bases arguments if you are interested!

I have smoked it on and off for years, and from my peak of smoking it every day when I was 18 I think I can safely say for me it has negative effects in a few ways. I remember at my peak of smoking, I felt a bit depressed and my emotions seemed very numbed, couldn't really get excited or sad about much. That was a weird time! I can clearly trace a correlation between the amount I smoked/amount of time I spent stoned and my academic achievement (starting off with low motivation and just scraping through A Levels ending up at the end of university getting a 2:1 and a 1st in my dissertation). I think that it definitely affected my motivational skills to get on with work and made me put things off as I was stoned and couldn't be bothered. I now smoke very rarely, really enjoy it still but when it comes to spending money on it there are far too many other competing demands on my wallet! In terms of damage to your body, I think that if you were to drink to the point of intoxication every day and compare that to getting stoned every day its pretty clear which one is more damaging to your body (and also your lifestyle, most people can still function and get on with work when stoned). I think the 'negative' effect of low motivation/numbing emotions could actually be useful for me in some situations, for example if I resigned myself to the job I am doing it would help me feel better (or not feel) about not fulfilling my potential!