Mike Garlick/Peter Coates comments on Brexit and football

[burnleymik]

There are many ways Brexit will be carried out. Norway rules, Canada rules, no deal, etc etc.

And all of them are worse for our economy than the current deal. Brexit is founded on idealism, not on facts. People think “Churchillian spirit” will somehow have any relevance ffs

Again this is based on predictions, from the same people who predicted our economy would collapse if we didn't join the Euro, or we would see all kinds of problems if we voted to leave. One after the other they have admitted they were wrong, why is it this time that they must be right?

[burnleymik]

This shows just how unaware of the realities of the political landscape you are.
In the last election there was a lot of tactical voting, with the Lib Dems being "squeezed out".
There were a lot of Pro-EU "Lib Dem" supporters and even Conservatives who voted Labour in order to try to reduce the governments majority and therefore send a signal to Theresa May. (it worked).
There were also some traditional Labour supporters who voted Tory in order to signal their support for Brexit. (It worked in the sense that the Tories gained a couple of unexpected seats, e.g. Mansfield, and it gave them enough - just - to do a deal with the DUP).
Libs only tended to do well when they were already 2nd to a Pro-Brexit Tory, (e.g. Vince Cable). (i.e. Pro - EU Lab and Tory voters were prepared to back the candidate who had the best chance of winning).

You presume to know the minds of all the voters. That is a hell of a claim to make...

[Walton]

True it didn't exceed 1.3, I was looking at July 2008 to June 2014 (mid 2008 to mid 2014) and it spent more days between 1.25 and 1.31 than 1.05 and 1.11 (I was just using your range of 0.2 for the upper end). A range of 1.10 - 1.30 would be better I guess (obviously your numbers are a little skewed as you have November as the middle of the year).

Goodness knows why dsr chose a random timeframe to suit his argument, rather than a completely logical July-June one as you did.

[SGr]

"overpower"

Its coming

[SGr]

Again this is based on predictions, from the same people who predicted our economy would collapse if we didn't join the Euro, or we would see all kinds of problems if we voted to leave. One after the other they have admitted they were wrong, why is it this time that they must be right?

Truth is I didn’t think things would be all too bad when we voted out. My opinions are based on what I’ve seen, not what I assumed would happen.

[burnleymik]

Truth is I didn’t think things would be all too bad when we voted out. My opinions are based on what I’ve seen, not what I assumed would happen.

Fair enough, so what is it you have seen that convinced you it will be terrible? Despite the vote employment is at a record low. Exports are booming. Companies are not leaving in droves. Etc.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If it means we get less average foreign players which then allows more English lads a chance what's the issue?

[JohnMcGreal]

But the exchange rate issue is a red herring

These red herrings are racking up, dsr. You'll have a net full of them pretty soon.

[dsr]

True it didn't exceed 1.3, I was looking at July 2008 to June 2014 (mid 2008 to mid 2014) and it spent more days between 1.25 and 1.31 than 1.05 and 1.11 (I was just using your range of 0.2 for the upper end). A range of 1.10 - 1.30 would be better I guess (obviously your numbers are a little skewed as you have November as the middle of the year).

In that period. the lowest was 1.02 and the highest was 1.29. There is no way you can fairly represent that range by "1.10 to 1.30".

[dsr]

Goodness knows why dsr chose a random timeframe to suit his argument, rather than a completely logical July-June one as you did.

Since you have to ask, I had better explain. I was illustrating that for 8 years of that 10 year period, the Euro exchange rate was similar to what it is now and so there is no reason to suppose that transfer dealings would be harder now than then. It would be pretty silly to extend the time period to a higher rate time when I am illustrating how long it was at lower rate.

Your difficulty, I suppose, is that I didn't make it clear that I was talking in approximate periods - I didn't mean that for exactly 8 years 0 months 0 days 0 minutes 0 seconds the rate was about the same - to do that would be plainly silly when we're talking about approximate rates.

But if it helps, let me clarify - for about 7 years and 8 months of the last 9 years and 8 months period, the Euro exchange rate was similar to what it is now and so there is no reason to suppose that transfer dealings would be harder now than then.

[dsr]

These red herrings are racking up, dsr. You'll have a net full of them pretty soon.

There's a lot of red herrings about. I like to let people know they're there so as not to waste their time fishing for them. But you can never fill the net, obviously!

[nil_desperandum]

You presume to know the minds of all the voters. That is a hell of a claim to make...

No I don't. I just read what the analysts wrote based on surveys / data made available after the election that explained why 83% of the vote was split between the 2 main parties. This was up from about 68% and marked a return to"Two Party Politics".

[aggi]

In that period. the lowest was 1.02 and the highest was 1.29. There is no way you can fairly represent that range by "1.10 to 1.30".

I happened to have my FX rate spreadsheet open yesterday so just spent 30 seconds looking at how many days were captured in the range when you posted.

Mid-2008 to mid-2014 is 1515 days (excluding weekends). 1.05-1.25 covers 1,365 of the days, 1.1-1.3 covers 1,453 of the days (I was just using your 0.2 range). I'd say 1.1-1.3 is fairly representative.

Ultimately though, the fact we're having this discussion suggests your point is somewhat questionable.

[dsr]

I happened to have my FX rate spreadsheet open yesterday so just spent 30 seconds looking at how many days were captured in the range when you posted.

Mid-2008 to mid-2014 is 1515 days (excluding weekends). 1.05-1.25 covers 1,365 of the days, 1.1-1.3 covers 1,453 of the days (I was just using your 0.2 range). I'd say 1.1-1.3 is fairly representative.

Ultimately though, the fact we're having this discussion suggests your point is somewhat questionable.

Your low side of the range is 8 cents above the actual low. Your high side of the range is one cent higher than the actual high. The actual range is 1.02 to 1.29, which can never be fairly represented by 1.1 to 1.3. If you argued for 1.1 to 1.25, you might have a point.

Be that as it may, for 1714 of the 2547 working days in the last 10 years, the exchange rate has been within 10% of what it is now. That's slightly over two thirds of the time. Current exchange rate conditions are not exceptional.

[aggi]

That's a bit skewed as you're including the past 2 years post-Brexit vote when the rate has been depressed. If you look at the ten years prior to the Brexit vote it's a hair under 50% of the time (and the effect is somewhat exaggerated as rates were much higher in the couple of years prior to the vote so the immediate drop was sharper).

Anyway, I suspect no-one else cares. Personally I'd suggest it is an issue but has also been used as an excuse for our lack of scouting infrastructure in Europe. I also suspect that Garlick is drawing on his experience in recruitment in general where the weak pound/fewer EU candidates is an issue in recruiting specialist employees in the UK.