TigerTedd

The boldest act by NASA since the Apollo missions, showing the most ambition since Kennedy's 1961 "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. 
There were three bids still in the running for the contract for the Human Landing System to take astronauts back to the Moon as part of the Artemis mission. The other two were far more expensive than SpaceX, but were "safe" ideas, essentially trying to recreate the Lunar Module from the 1960s, but a little bigger. And would largely have just resulted in more cushy government contracts to do the same old, same old. 
In contrast, SpaceX has self-funded the development of Starship for five years, risking bankruptcy along the way. If it can succeed, it represents a step change in what NASA can do on the Moon, delivering thousands of tonnes of cargo for a significant Human presence. 
This is a political decision in that the Chinese and Russians have signed an accord to build a Moonbase together. Meanwhile, Biden has nominated the deeply unpopular (in the space world) Bill Nelson to run NASA, now awaiting Senate ratification. 
If NASA had waited, Nelson wouldn't have allowed SpaceX to have the contract, and the Russians and Chinese would have the Moon to themselves. Instead, if (and it is an "if") Starship can succeed, NASA has a hundred times more capacity than other nations. That's my reading of it anyway. 

They should replace parachute payments with a wage subsidy scheme. Whereby any player retained after relegation has 70% of their wages and bonuses funded by this scheme. It will stop clubs who don’t invest when in the PL from profiting further. If the club sells the player, then the subsidy for that player ends. They will then be fishing in the same pond as the rest of the division when recruiting as there will be no PL subsidy on new players. 

In fairness, most do make cut backs upon relegation. This season, Norwich and Watford sold players for £40m, Bournemouth over £80m. None of those spent much, if anything at all. However, the parachute payments allowed them to retain players they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.
There were some clubs who used the parachute payments to strengthen their squad - Boro, Villa and Stoke stick out in my memory.
What makes matters worse is P&S rules which allow a club to lose £22m more for each season they spent in the PL. 
Using Huddersfield as an example (an ignoring changes for Covid), they had a £87m advantage over other clubs in the 19/20 3 year period. In 20/21, it is a £100m advantage. Even next season, they still have a £90m advantage.
 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
parachute payments were intended to help clubs pay off contracts of expensive premier league payments. The whole issue would be fixed if they just changed the rule slightly to say they should be ring fenced for this purpose and this purpose alone. 
instead clubs abuse them and use the parachute payments to by massively expensive players, which not alone drives the market up across the whole championship, but also leaves the clubs in exactly the mess the parachute payments were supposed to create when they run out of money to actually pay off the contracts. 
in fact, it would be nice if the parachute payments were a fixed amount, or the value of the premier league contracts, which ever is less, so they don’t end up with an excess of a few million they can start chucking about. 
but I think the damage has been done now and the market has been destabilised forever. 
it really losses me off sometimes how inept these people are, running an international multi billion pound industry, and they can’t seem to see these simple issues. How the duck did they ever get a job above the level of chip shop (apologies to anyone who works in a chip shop)?

the parachute payments create a completely unfair environment

Ikechi Anya has really let himself go hasn’t he. 

The constant slating of him for being Lampard’s class pet offers conclusive proof that Chelsea fans are a bunch of bell-whiffs, who know feck all about football. 
 
The lads a straight up baller...

Our management watching this ...... 

We used to be good once ?

https://apple.news/A9DvXg1pVR5amlVzDiVgsVQ
This kind of proves your point. 

What about wanting them to score a hat-trick in an 8-3 win for England? ?

Have you picked up an injury?

Fair enough. 
 
I love the England team so I want to enjoy it. 

Glad Joz hasn't started. Poland have looked flat and he'd just end up running around getting nothing done. 
We need him fresh for Friday so he can run around and get nothing done for us. 

I know Mason Mount was only here on loan but he feels like one of us , so proud of his performances this season , going to be a big player for Chelsea and England

Hamilton won fair and square, and Verstappen, to his credit, hasn't said any different. The FIA said before the weekend that they wouldn't be monitoring track limits at T4, so why anyone would expect Hamilton to valiantly go slower on that corner on purpose is beyond me. It's an unproven theory, but with Verstappen's early differential issues, it's possible the reason he stopped taking that line (and he did stop, because he had been doing it all weekend before) was to prevent that issue getting worse.
The grey area comes from the FIA saying they would enforce track limits for overtaking. It seems oxymoronic to say you can use that piece of tarmac to gain lap time, but not to gain a place. That confusion isn't any of the drivers' fault.
It's another drive from Hamilton which further proves his legendary status. Bahrain this year and Turkey last season are two Grand Prix where he found a way to win without the fastest car, putting an embarrassing distance on his highly competent teammate. Consider those races with his 2019 title, where he won with the second (and by the end of the season, third) fastest car, and it ends any argument that he only wins because he has the best car. 

I’d hope we’d be able to keep him from Hull. 

So I was interested last night and thought I'd see what teams all used to be before reaching their current form:
McClaren, Ferarri, Williams and Haas are all the team they've always been.
Red Bull were the Stewart team of Jackie Stewart (Jaguar in between).
Aston Martin were the Jordan team (Force India and Racing Point).
Alpha Tauri were Minardi  (Torro Rosso in between).
Alpine are what was once Bennetton (Renault for many years).
Alpha Romeo were Sauber (one of the midfield teams I liked).
Merc were the Honda team once upon a time (via Brawn GP).
 

Fair enough, maybe it’s not your obsession, but certainly someone in this thread is going a bit ott, hence your thinking it was the jozwiak thread. 

Your TV schedule for the next week is:
Wednesday 24th @ 19:45
Lawrence vs Belgium (Sky Sports Main Event)
Knight vs Serbia  (Sky Sports Football)
Thursday 25th @ 19:45
Marshall vs Austria (Sky Sports Main Event)
Jozwiak vs Hungary (Sky Sports Red Button)
[England vs San Marino]
Friday 26th @ 13:00
Watson vs Wales U21
Saturday 27th @ 19:45
Knight vs Luxembourg  (Sky Sports Main Event)
Saturday 27th @ 20:00
Lawrence vs Mexico  (Sky Sports Premier League)
Sunday 28th @ 17:00
[England vs Albania]
Sunday 28th @ 19:45
Marshall vs Israel (Sky Sports Main Event)
Jozwiak vs Andorra (Sky Sports Red Button)
Tuesday 30th @ 19:45
Lawrence vs Czech Republic (Sky Sports Main Event)
Tuesday 30th @ 20:30
Knight vs Qatar  (Sky Sports Football)
Wednesday 31st @ 19:45
Marshall vs Faroe Islands (Sky Sports Main Event)
Jozwiak vs England (ITV)

Ah, so you’re a United fan. It all makes sense now. 

That's as likely to attract young talent as the headline-grabbing kids who make the first team and elite football. Much easier to convince prospective families to sign if they can see that even if they don't make it here, there's a tradition of making a respectable career in the professional game. 

The turnaround has been impressive, they were dead and buried at Christmas - absolute relegation certainties. 
JFH (and Ben Robinson who backed him with a number of new players during the mid season transfer window) deserve a lot of credit for their rise up the table ?

Thanks. Interesting, but I suggest far too negative. But right to point out that a colony will require a lot of energy.
Initially there's a lot of space on Mars for a lot of solar panels. and with people there we can clean the dust off most of the time. Then the option not even mentioned here is space-based solar power, with stations in orbit around Mars in permanent sunshine beaming the energy down. We're getting closer to this on Earth and the technology is instantly transferable to a Mars colony. Then nuclear is an option within a much shorter timeframe than the 200 years mentioned. The writer doesn't understand the accelerating pace of technological progress. Any Martian colony will likely end up refining its own uranium fairly quickly when we see that technology fairly easy to develop and maintain on Earth.
With a spacefaring capacity on Mars it's so much easier to also industrialize the asteroid belt, as you don't have to escape Earth's deep gravity, so that will happen within 50 years not 200. Though the point of Mars is that it does have the resources needed in situ.
The piece talks so much about a colony of 12 people and doesn't grasp the transformational nature of what SpaceX is trying to achieve. This is about the democratization of space. It's not about 12 people or even 12,000. It's hundreds of thousands. The Starships being built are cheap and relatively easy to build and SpaceX will be building one a week and then even faster. This means even in the early days there will be a vast cargo capability to Mars, taking far more than anyone would at one time (and even now for this author) have thought possible to carry to the red planet.