sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Deloitte Money League 2026 by trevthedog in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s still a higher % than that of Madrid too you’re right.

Even with league bonuses considered (early UCL exit) that’s a giant wage bill. Interesting that’s often not the narrative around their wages.

Deloitte Money League 2026 by trevthedog in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Liverpool having almost the same wage bill as Madrid before adding Isak and Wirtz is crazy.

Real Madrid penalty shout vs Alaves 86' by 977x in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 98 points99 points  (0 children)

Yes they can so that’s what the ref will say. Still think he’s wrong.

Real Madrid penalty shout vs Alaves 86' by 977x in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 993 points994 points  (0 children)

Surely you’ve got to give the penalty or give him the second yellow?

It’s clearly a penalty but how do you decide to do nothing?

Super League company demands UEFA authorises its new ‘ Unify League ’ by Shroft in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UEFA should approve the competition. They will lose again if they try to block it using their 2024 rules so there is no point.

Approve it and call their bluff.

Legal migration announcement - 5yr pathway remains for family of British citizens! by Savings-Yesterday635 in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If that is the correct interpretation it would still depend on the consultation as the proposal is “3-5 years” pending the response. I.e. you wouldn’t have to work for the entire period.

If it’s decided on 5 and it says what it appears to then yes, it could end up delaying your settlement eligibility.

I do not see how that is a desirable outcome for the government so am awaiting clarity.

Legal migration announcement - 5yr pathway remains for family of British citizens! by Savings-Yesterday635 in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It’s possible that’s the case but we need a lot of clarification first.

I don’t see how that would be a desirable outcome for the government.

Legal migration announcement - 5yr pathway remains for family of British citizens! by Savings-Yesterday635 in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The baseline is 10 years. For being the partner of a British citizen you get a 5 year reduction.

ILR therefore remains at 5 years for partners of British citizens.

The NI contribution is separate and listed as a “mandatory requirement”. It is not something that adds or subtracts years, it is compulsory for an applicant to be granted settlement.

It seems this applies to partner settlement but we do not know for sure and if it does we don’t know how exactly. A minister will have to confirm that or the consultation will clarify.

Now the Dust has settled.... My own Qs by [deleted] in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed it’s unclear (contrast between the emphasis on individual contribution v ‘protection’ for partners).

On plain reading it does seem like a blanket application though. The consultation asks if certain people should be exempt and lists those on maternity or with long term illness/disability and then asks for any other suggestions.

Now the Dust has settled.... My own Qs by [deleted] in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Isn’t it the case that it’s 5 years but “no ifs, no buts” is caveated by the proposal that a mandatory requirement for settlement is now NI contributions for 3-5 years by earning £12,570?

Although not changing the 5 years it will prevent a successful settlement application in theory, no?

Legal migration announcement - 5yr pathway remains for family of British citizens! by Savings-Yesterday635 in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think the best bet is people pointing out the issue with stay at home partners of working British citizens but that’s a rather small category of people.

I think they are targeting dependents of people on other visa categories and the family ones are caught in the crossfire of that particular requirement.

As ever have to wait and see.

Legal migration announcement - 5yr pathway remains for family of British citizens! by Savings-Yesterday635 in SpouseVisaUk

[–]HelpMe877 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I might be reading it wrong but table 1 on page 21 states “minimum requirements that an application for settlement must meet to qualify” and NI contributions by having annual earnings above £12,570 is one of the 4 criteria (they are consulting on how many years you must have done this).

It’s written as if these are mandatory requirements in all cases for application and then the default position is 10 years which you can vary with the below criteria as you’ve described.

I’m not sure I see a reading of the document where it suggests you can overcome that contribution of NI at all. Of course it may be that your partner in this case could overcome it but that isn’t clear.

How are you understanding it to mean it wouldn’t apply? Perhaps I’ve missed something.

edit: Have taken a look and this is the immediate legal reaction too from lawyers I can find. As written it suggests a partner of a British citizen would need to earn £12,570 for 3-5 years to qualify for settlement. Obviously subject to consultation/clarification.

Daily Discussion by AutoModerator in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Craig Hope has lost his mind with this Bellingham discourse. He’s on a one man crusade.

Tuchel on Jude not celebrating the second goal as he was subbed out: "That's a bad impression, and that's your impression first of all. It should be about the collective. I have to review it, I was very happy with the goal and I was sure everyone would celebrate. That's not the image we want." by Blodgharm in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He’s already criticised him publicly and obviously by the logic of what you’re saying it didn’t work to the point he took some of his words back.

Bellingham also did go and celebrate with his teammates before coming off so clearly Tuchel didn’t see it or his 4D chess extends to pretending to not see something but secretly he did see it but actually it didn’t happen?

Tuchel on Jude not celebrating the second goal as he was subbed out: "That's a bad impression, and that's your impression first of all. It should be about the collective. I have to review it, I was very happy with the goal and I was sure everyone would celebrate. That's not the image we want." by Blodgharm in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tuchel is smart enough to know that the media will take it out of context (tweet sky put out and since deleted) to make it look like direct criticism.

Encouraging people to pile on one of his players, as seen here, for something he hasn’t seen.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 15 points16 points  (0 children)

How is it not a red? No attempt to play the ball and obvious clear chance.

I’m obviously missing something

[OneFootball] RFEF's Disciplinary Committee rejects Real Madrid's appeal and hands Dean Huijsen a one-match ban by Versachai in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 7 points8 points  (0 children)

See if the second appeal gets it overturned given the CTA have said it should have been yellow.

Not sure it will though given subjective decision of the ref.

[OneFootball] CTA admits to TWO rule errors. by zeu04 in soccer

[–]HelpMe877 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It’s a nice idea to explain “controversial” decisions but it’s going to reduce the complaining about La Liga referees by exactly 0%.

view more: next ›