Bad Beat/Moaning/Venting - pray for Lazare

[Raoul Duke III]

The public had already hated Irish Water and the idea of it. It had already been a PR disaster for them. This article from October 7th 2014 sums it up. Actually quite a good one on the PR mess that Irish Water was.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/minister-who-set-up-irish-water-now-brands-it-a-disaster-30644275.html

Did Noonan and co. announce plans to cut taxes for in when Irish Water was set up? That was in 2013 or so I think.

Are there tax credits in place for ESB bills?

This whole line of yours is just egregious nonsense. Going by this logic, as soon as I pay my ESB bill, I should get a tax credit to cover it.

How fucking hard is this to understand. Water is a service, delivered via a public utility. Just like electricity. You pay for it on the basis of metered usage. That's it. Every other first world country operates on this basis - we are not special or different.

Basically this whole debacle just confirms that, in Ireland, if you shout loud enough about something, no matter whether your argument has any intrinsic logic or not, the government will cave in to you. The PS unions have clearly taken note of this.

[Raoul Duke III]

Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. Otherwise nothing will ever change. If you accept Irish Water then it simply a green light for FG and Co. to continue with their brand of incompetence forever. Allowing that to happen is going to cost far more money in the long-term than abolishing Irish Water ever will. I do also find it funny that the people who the first to complain about public sector incompetence and financial wastage are also the first to champion keeping Irish Water. It's like SFers arguing against a property tax.

So dismantling IW and handing back the infrastructure to local councils would be a 'step forward'?

[Emmet]

The public had already hated Irish Water and the idea of it. It had already been a PR disaster for them. This article from October 7th 2014 sums it up. Actually quite a good one on the PR mess that Irish Water was.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/minister-who-set-up-irish-water-now-brands-it-a-disaster-30644275.html

Did Noonan and co. announce plans to cut taxes for in when Irish Water was set up? That was in 2013 or so I think.

Right.

I was addressing your point were you suggested that a better course of action for the Government would have been to make tax cuts and social welfare increases.

Giving a guy like Phil hogan the task of setting it up was a bad idea. He's not exactly a person people will warm to. They should have given some token tax deduction to off-set the Water charges. We've been told water infrastructure was always taken from the general tax net so would make sense that there is a cut somewhere to balance things out.

As for Irish Water Inc. They had numerous fuck ups with Data protection laws, one case were bank details for customers were sent to different customers. That kind of thing takes an impressive level of incompetence to achieve. Then there is also the issue of bonuses, pretty much the last company where bonuses should be dished out like free candy and that's exactly what they did.

By telling you that that is almost exactly what happened, and you must have forgotten...

[Emmet]

Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. Otherwise nothing will ever change. If you accept Irish Water then it simply a green light for FG and Co. to continue with their brand of incompetence forever. Allowing that to happen is going to cost far more money in the long-term than abolishing Irish Water ever will. I do also find it funny that the people who the first to complain about public sector incompetence and financial wastage are also the first to champion keeping Irish Water. It's like SFers arguing against a property tax.

Please quantify what the fuck you are on about.

[LuckyLloyd]

LOL.

So all those grievances about the setup, the costs, the unfettered wastage of the super-quango, the performance-related-pay, all disappear because they are now borne by the exchequer instead of the individual? I thought we were to avoid conflating "Anti-IW" and "Anti-Water Charges"? The later have won some time / a grace period if anything. Nothing has changed for the former.

Btw, we're on IW v1.4.3.5 after the amount of nonsense that has gone on thus far. The original IW was a far, far different beast to what you see today, and was an animal with a much healthier ability to provide for itself.

FAO Teddie - regarding the 'tax cuts and social welfare increases to match'. That's almost exactly what happened. Perhaps you just forgot?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Straw men, straw men everywhere

I didn't say those concerns have disappeared did I? If they are not addressed in whatever version of IW is propsed following this review of experts then the essential protest / loggerheads will continue.

[Emmet]

If all that comes out of the IW messing is that we get some li d of constitutional guarantee that it can't be flogged off to a bunch of vulture cunts outside of the country I'll be happy.

Why?

Seriously. What's the reason for keeping it in public ownership?

If a private company can do all of what Irish Water can do, and do it better, and do it cheaper, and do it faster, why would we not want them to do all of that and improve the system?

[Teddie]

Are there tax credits in place for ESB bills?

This whole line of yours is just egregious nonsense. Going by this logic, as soon as I pay my ESB bill, I should get a tax credit to cover it.

How fucking hard is this to understand. Water is a service, delivered via a public utility. Just like electricity. You pay for it on the basis of metered usage. That's it. Every other first world country operates on this basis - we are not special or different.

Basically this whole debacle just confirms that, in Ireland, if you shout loud enough about something, no matter whether your argument has any intrinsic logic or not, the government will cave in to you. The PS unions have clearly taken note of this.

When you peddle the line about general taxes being higher because they need to cover water infrastructure then don't be surprised if people gets a bit angry when you bring in water metering and do little to off-set it.

So dismantling IW and handing back the infrastructure to local councils would be a 'step forward'?

I'd have just done similar to what RichieM suggested.

[Teddie]

Please quantify what the fuck you are on about.

If you consistently allow Governments to perform incompetently it's going to be expensive.

[Emmet]

Straw men, straw men everywhere.

Well no. Your direct quote was;

A suspension of charges is essential defeat for IW v1.0

But all that a suspension of the charges means is that the exchequer pays ALL of the IW costs instead of the majority of them. That's it! Zero inroads into any of the supposed gripes.

All that happens is that small amount that people were asked to contribute directly, stays in their pockets and that figure now gets taken out of the funds that are used to run the state, pay for Garda and Nurses wage increases etc.

So we've got the worst of both worlds. The quango that needs slimming and efficiency upgrades, and we've reduced the state's abilities to run itself appropriately. Nice one!

I didn't say those concerns have disappeared did I? If they are not addressed in whatever version of IW is proposed following this review of experts then the essential protest / loggerheads will continue.

Let's see what the proposal for 2.0 is in time.

IW2.0 will be IW1.0, because that was a good idea. A centralised utility service that could provide water services to the country, amalgamating the disparate systems that had fallen into disrepair after years of local authorities being unable to maintain and develop them due to a number of factors.

I await (patiently but unexpectantly) for any proposal that is materially different than the IW1.0 that could be in place of it. As always, and as has been said a hundred times if not more, if there is a better system, lets do it. However, it's very odd that no better system has been promoted given that open invite has been around for several years at this stage!

[Emmet]

When you peddle the line about general taxes being higher because they need to cover water infrastructure then don't be surprised if people gets a bit angry when you bring in water metering and do little to off-set it.

Did you miss the tax decreases linked above?

[Denny Crane]

When you peddle the line about general taxes being higher because they need to cover water infrastructure then don't be surprised if people gets a bit angry when you bring in water metering and do little to off-set it.

Have to just be trolling at this stage.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[MrsFlushdraw]

Didn't get to find out ultimately who was afraid of Virginia Woolf. Got to the interval, took one sip of my G&T, and turned on my phone to find several frantic messages. Wife had cut herself to the bone while doing the washing-up and got herself carted off to Beaumont bleeding profusely while the neighbour (Zuut's m8) came in to mind the kids. All grand in the end, couple of stitches and she'll be home soon. Kids seem totally unfussed.

Moral of the story: keep your phone off until the end of the show.

Get the woman a dishwasher!

[LuckyLloyd]

Personally I would happily outsource IW to who ever the water equivalent of Transdev are. Those guys know how to control costs and the Luas seems to have run pretty perfectly up until the strike which they are fairly winning at the moment.

Who really gives a crap who runs our utilities so long as they are run as efficiently as possible, regular re-tenders keeps people on the straight and narrow.

Transdev were given two disconnected, dedicated, demand over capacity and non complex lines to run. I'm not sure that it's an apple worth comparing with the orange that is water provision in Ireland.

[Raoul Duke III]

Get the woman a dishwasher!

How sexist.

[Raoul Duke III]

Have to just be trolling at this stage.

I reckon he's just trying to win a prize for most logical fallacies ever posted on IPB in a single 24 hour period.

[RichieM]

Transdev were given two disconnected, dedicated, demand over capacity and non complex lines to run. I'm not sure that it's an apple worth comparing with the orange that is water provision in Ireland.

Who should run it? A selection of county Councillors or move people from other semi states who have no experience in setting something like this up or running it?

We dont have the skills required in our current setup as has been proven over the last number of years.

I find it terrifying that people who have a water supply that degraded to undrinkable levels under the county board system are out protesting to go back to that.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[shrapnel]

Jones-DC to headline UFC 200. happy days!

[Teddie]

Did you miss the tax decreases linked above?

Yea using a short-term tax that was always going to be abolished doesn't really seem like off-setting to me. That still doesn't take away from the fact they made a mess of setting it up. Shifting the goalposts after the mess they made still doesn't detract from my point that they made a mess of setting it up. I didn't even mention the fact it was meant to be a metered water system and now it's not even metered.

[Emmet]

Yea using a short-term tax that was always going to be abolished doesn't really seem like off-setting to me.

This isn't a subjective issue, it's an objective fact.

Taxes were reduced to offset the water charges that were now directed upon the consumer and not the exchequer.

That still doesn't take away from the fact they made a mess of setting it up. Shifting the goalposts after the mess they made still doesn't detract from my point that they made a mess of setting it up. I didn't even mention the fact it was meant to be a metered water system and now it's not even metered.

Zero issues with calling the setup a disgrace.

Sunk cost fallacy suggests that we accept that the setup being an absolute disaster offers us nothing in the way of ongoing information about them. There is nothing about the setup that we can now change. What exists, exists. We can only change things going forward, not looking back.

[RichieM]

Yea using a short-term tax that was always going to be abolished doesn't really seem like off-setting to me. That still doesn't take away from the fact they made a mess of setting it up. Shifting the goalposts after the mess they made still doesn't detract from my point that they made a mess of setting it up. I didn't even mention the fact it was meant to be a metered water system and now it's not even metered.

If there wasn't such pressure due to the water charges I dont know if USC would have been abolished tbh. I would say the top band cutoff would have been raised instead with a cut to the lower rate.

[Teddie]

This isn't a subjective issue, it's an objective fact.

Taxes were reduced to offset the water charges that were now directed upon the consumer and not the exchequer.


Zero issues with calling the setup a disgrace.

Sunk cost fallacy suggests that we accept that the setup being an absolute disaster offers us nothing in the way of ongoing information about them. There is nothing about the setup that we can now change. What exists, exists. We can only change things going forward, not looking back.

Fair enough. We can cancel off-setting taxes off the list of disasters about Irish Water.

There is very little that can be changed going forward though, barring privatising it. We'll still be stuck with the ridiculous "pay related performance/bonus" contracts and those can't be broken. At least if we blow it up and start again there's a chance that whoever sets it up will actually bother paying even a small bit attention to how stuff like that is implemented.

If there wasn't such pressure due to the water charges I dont know if USC would have been abolished tbh. I would say the top band cutoff would have been raised instead with a cut to the lower rate.

This could well be true. Still left with the issue that FG never planned to off-set the charges, they were forced into it because of pressure. So while they did do it, it left a bad taste in people's mouths because they had to be pressured into doing it. I'll add "not announcing off-setting taxes when setting up Irish water" to the list of disasters.

[Emmet]

Fair enough. We can cancel off-setting taxes off the list of disasters about Irish Water.

There is very little that can be changed going forward though, barring privatising it. We'll still be stuck with the ridiculous "pay related performance/bonus" contracts and those can't be broken. At least if we blow it up and start again there's a chance that whoever sets it up will actually bother paying even a small bit attention to how stuff like that is implemented.

Right. One fallacy down.

Onto the next.

"Bonuses"

SIPTU - wanting it paid

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-bonuses-talks-2213321-Jul2015/

SIPTU says the pay structure at the contentious utility was agreed with management in 2012, and that it resulted in a €34 million saving in labour costs.
As part of that deal, a portion of pay was put “at risk” – meaning it would only be awarded once certain conditions were met.

Ervia - wanting not to pay it;

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-staff-take-row-5965494

Ervia has defended the pay model saying that it had brought considerable savings when compared to the previous bonus-based pay model at Bord Gais.

It also rejected descriptions of the performance awards as being comparable to a traditional ‘bonus’ and instead they have described it as a ‘pay-at-risk’ element of pay

Consider what we've heard of the LUAS drivers and the element of their contract that they have lost. The "pay related performance/bonus" that they received for Not-Striking. Do you think that it would be better to pay them that 6% without any conditions and hope that they 'don't strike'? Or would you think that it might make sense to link the figure to them actually providing the service that they are to.

There was an element of the contract that required 'stuff' to unlock it. The staff fulfilled their side.

The other alternative was for IW staff to have that 5/6% amount locked in regardless of whether or not they completed the necessary tasks.

Thoughts on that as an ideal?

This could well be true. Still left with the issue that FG never planned to off-set the charges, they were forced into it because of pressure.

Conjecture. And irrelevant in the context of Irish Water, only relevant in any discussions about FG's lack of foresight.

So while they did do it, it left a bad taste in people's mouths because they had to be pressured into doing it. I'll add "not announcing off-setting taxes when setting up Irish water" to the list of disasters.

Conjecture.

And IW was announced when we were running an enormous deficit, would've been realllll tough to decrease taxes then, and definitely a terrible idea to promise them

[Raoul Duke III]

Which button do I press to vote for Emmet?

[Raoul Duke III]

Seeming Lynn2Win is going to get the third TCD seat, so we can relax

Live updates only for those most desperate for something to distract themselves from work: http://www.universitytimes.ie/2016/0...count-day-two/

Phew. Although I really doubt we have seen the last of Averil. Any bets in what guise the power-hungry bitch will surface under next?

[RichieM]

Phew. Although I really doubt we have seen the last of Averil. Any bets in what guise the power-hungry bitch will surface under next?

Putting dogs down in the pound while waiting for the presidential campaign of 2018/9

[Teddie]

Right. One fallacy down.

Onto the next.

"Bonuses"

SIPTU - wanting it paid

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-bonuses-talks-2213321-Jul2015/

Ervia - wanting not to pay it;

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-staff-take-row-5965494

Consider what we've heard of the LUAS drivers and the element of their contract that they have lost. The "pay related performance/bonus" that they received for Not-Striking. Do you think that it would be better to pay them that 6% without any conditions and hope that they 'don't strike'? Or would you think that it might make sense to link the figure to them actually providing the service that they are to.

There was an element of the contract that required 'stuff' to unlock it. The staff fulfilled their side.

The other alternative was for IW staff to have that 5/6% amount locked in regardless of whether or not they completed the necessary tasks.

Thoughts on that as an ideal?

Let's start with the journal link....

As part of that deal, a portion of pay was put “at risk” – meaning it would only be awarded once certain conditions were met.

Any idea on those conditions? Considering the same article, and I read it before states,

It emerged in October of last year that some staff who were deemed to “need improvement” could still be entitled to bonuses.

So basically if you were considered to need improvement you could still get a bonus. I can't exactly image those conditions being too difficult to achieve - maybe it was stuff like turning up for work, or not burning down the building. I wonder if one of those conditions included not sending out the different customers bank details to other people, I doubt it though.

There's no point championing a pay-related performance scheme when a drunken chimp could achieve the "conditions" that they set. Which seems to be the case for Irish Water.

As for the Luas drivers, I think it would be far better to just not pay them the 6%.

And IW was announced when we were running an enormous deficit, would've been realllll tough to decrease taxes then, and definitely a terrible idea to promise them

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been tough, what I am saying is don't be surprised if people get really pissed off with being under the impression they are being double taxed.

[Theresa]

Teddie getting smashed here.

Wp Mo.

[gorrrr72]

What food tasted the best when you returned this time

Carvery in the Kestrel, you just can't find that quality of Sunday lunch/dinner even in restaurant's here, and it ain't rocket science. They just buy sub-standard roast beef, either shoe leather or sometimes it's processed plastic stuff .
Nobody has heard of silverside corned beef and I don't know if or where you can buy it here. Brought some back though, along with the obligatory superquinn sausages that you buy in supervalu . When you say corned beef they just think of the crap in the tin, like spam.

[CHDad]

Carvery in the Kestrel, you just can't find that quality of Sunday lunch/dinner even in restaurant's here, and it ain't rocket science. They just buy sub-standard roast beef, either shoe leather or sometimes it's processed plastic stuff .
Nobody has heard of silverside corned beef and I don't know if or where you can buy it here. Brought some back though, along with the obligatory superquinn sausages that you buy in supervalu . When you say corned beef they just think of the crap in the tin, like spam.

SuperValu always has silverside on offer m8. I like.

[gorrrr72]

SuperValu always has silverside on offer m8. I like.

Might start importing it to Spain, people need to know what this cut of beef is all about.

[Emmet]

Any idea on those conditions? Considering the same article, and I read it before states,

Absolutely no idea whatsoever.

So basically if you were considered to need improvement you could still get a bonus.

Well yes, I mean that's perfectly reasonable. Do you not think that a staff member that needs improvement might respond well to the fact that they could still achieve some bonus payment if they sort themselves out?

I can't exactly image those conditions being too difficult to achieve - maybe it was stuff like turning up for work, or not burning down the building. I wonder if one of those conditions included not sending out the different customers bank details to other people, I doubt it though.

Which conditions? Are you conjecturing again or are you basing any of this on anything tangible?

In any case, it's not really that important what they are! The point is rather simple, having any pay-at-risk means that your overall wage bill might be lower than what it would have to be without.

Would you rather IW's guaranteed wage bill was 6% more than it is now, or was somewhere between 0% and 6% more than it is now?

I'll give you a hint, if you select the second answer, you are selecting a strictly cheaper option. Cheaper is good for us!

There's no point championing a pay-related performance scheme when a drunken chimp could achieve the "conditions" that they set. Which seems to be the case for Irish Water.

What conditions are they? The ones you've supposed are in existence at IW? Reductio ad absurdum is very easy when you're allowed just make stuff up!

Again, do recall that the option is to either pay them all of the money all the time, or pay them less when they don't meet conditions. You budget for the 'worse case' scenario (most expensive), you genuinely hope to pay out worse case scenario, but you have the fall-back of not having to spend as much money on wages as you might without pay-at-risk elements.

As for the Luas drivers, I think it would be far better to just not pay them the 6%.

Pay them €0.94 in the euro on what they currently are contracted to earn? Or guaranteed them €1 in the euro on what they actually do earn? Just want to be clear about what you're suggesting here.

Eg, IW worker has salary of €30k guaranteed. They also have a bonus of anywhere between €0 and €1,800 dependent on completion of their tasks.

Do you want them to earn €31,800 per year or €30,000 per year (regardless of their performance)?

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been tough, what I am saying is don't be surprised if people get really pissed off with being under the impression they are being double taxed.

We shouldn't be surprised that people get pissed off because they believe something that is clearly wrong?

They have enjoyed tax decreases and social welfare increases as well as a conservation grant to offset the costs that the exchequer has asked them to bear. Again, objective fact!

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Teddie]

Absolutely no idea whatsoever.

Well yes, I mean that's perfectly reasonable. Do you not think that a staff member that needs improvement might respond well to the fact that they could still achieve some bonus payment if they sort themselves out?

Which conditions? Are you conjecturing again or are you basing any of this on anything tangible?

In any case, it's not really that important what they are! The point is rather simple, having any pay-at-risk means that your overall wage bill might be lower than what it would have to be without.

Would you rather IW's guaranteed wage bill was 6% more than it is now, or was somewhere between 0% and 6% more than it is now?

I'll give you a hint, if you select the second answer, you are selecting a strictly cheaper option. Cheaper is good for us!

What conditions are they? The ones you've supposed are in existence at IW? Reductio ad absurdum is very easy when you're allowed just make stuff up!

Again, do recall that the option is to either pay them all of the money all the time, or pay them less when they don't meet conditions. You budget for the 'worse case' scenario (most expensive), you genuinely hope to pay out worse case scenario, but you have the fall-back of not having to spend as much money on wages as you might without pay-at-risk elements.


Pay them €0.94 in the euro on what they currently are contracted to earn? Or guaranteed them €1 in the euro on what they actually do earn? Just want to be clear about what you're suggesting here.

Eg, IW worker has salary of €30k guaranteed. They also have a bonus of anywhere between €0 and €1,800 dependent on completion of their tasks.

Do you want them to earn €31,800 per year or €30,000 per year (regardless of their performance)?

We shouldn't be surprised that people get pissed off because they believe something that is clearly wrong?

They have enjoyed tax decreases and social welfare increases as well as a conservation grant to offset the costs that the exchequer has asked them to bear. Again, objective fact!

I've no problem with that either but that's not the system in place.

Senior managers at Irish Water are in line for bonuses of 9pc - almost €9,000 per year - even if they get an assessment rating which says they "need improvement".

as the "needs improvement" rating attracts a 9pc bonus for higher management, a 4pc top-up for middle staff on about €70,000 a year and 1.5pc for clerical grades.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-water-to-pay-9000-bonus-to-staff-in-need-of-improvement-30676922.html

Deemded to need improvement and you get a 9% bonus. Comical stuff

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Denny Crane]

In fairness, despite the other good points made by the anti-teddie brigade: nobody should get a penny of bonus when you've been so dodge that you get a 'needs improvement' annual performance evaluation. In the private sector you'd instead be moved into a 'let's help you improve so you can keep your job' category, not given a bonus.

All the more reason to keep Irish Water and privatise it.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Emmet]

I've no problem with that either but that's not the system in place.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-water-to-pay-9000-bonus-to-staff-in-need-of-improvement-30676922.html

Deemded to need improvement and you get a 9% bonus. Comical stuff

Any evidence that there was even a single person that this applied to?

The article notes a much smaller scale for all other grades, of which there would be far more people.

Also very important to know the distribution of those ratings that are achieved before you leap out of your pants. Many an honest company might see most employees at the 'needs improvement' scale.

[RichieM]

In fairness, despite the other good points made by the anti-teddie brigade: nobody should get a penny of bonus when you've been so dodge that you get a 'needs improvement' annual performance evaluation. In the private sector you'd instead be moved into a 'let's help you improve so you can keep your job' category, not given a bonus.

I would say plenty of people on the water infrastructure side deserved a bonus, some guy on the recruitment side deserved a bonus as they hired some decent people, the networks people did a good job since despite being shockingly built the site and infrastructure didn't go down. Plenty of people deserved to get fired right enough but a lot of people seemed to do a decent job.

[TheJiggaman]

Jones vs Cormier II announced as the main for UFC200.

Weirdly I'm not too pushed at the mo, but that'll probably change after a few exchanges. Probably not pushed because I'm just after seeing Jones fight maybe.

The whole card itself isn't great Tate vs Nunes has potential to be an absolute stinker of Tate lying on her for five rounds.

Edgar vs Aldo should be a cracker all the same as should Velasquez and Browne.

[Denny Crane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCJ15bAJ9E

[Guest]

Why?

Seriously. What's the reason for keeping it in public ownership?

If a private company can do all of what Irish Water can do, and do it better, and do it cheaper, and do it faster, why would we not want them to do all of that and improve the system?

Yeah I forgot private companies always have the public good close to their hearts. They would never engage is asset stripping,or allowing the water network to go to shit because fixing itwould eat into their bottom line or annoy their precious shareholders. Have a look at the shit Thames water pulled in England for examples of what I'm talking about

[Emmet]

Yeah I forgot private companies always have the public good close to their hearts. They would never engage is asset stripping,or allowing the water network to go to shit because fixing itwould eat into their bottom line or annoy their precious shareholders. Have a look at the shit Thames water pulled in England for examples of what I'm talking about

woah woah woah.

Privatising bus services does not mean selling roads. Privatising the Electricity services does not mean selling off the pylons to SSEAirtricity etc.

Transdev couldn't sell the LUAS lines for scrap metal.

You're fighting against something that nobody is suggesting should happen.

[DeadParrot]

Jones vs Cormier II announced as the main for UFC200.

Weirdly I'm not too pushed at the mo, but that'll probably change after a few exchanges. Probably not pushed because I'm just after seeing Jones fight maybe.

The whole card itself isn't great Tate vs Nunes has potential to be an absolute stinker of Tate lying on her for five rounds.

Edgar vs Aldo should be a cracker all the same as should Velasquez and Browne.

it's pretty underwhelming tbh.
Obviously McG would increase the buyrates but for such a big event, the lack of something is all too apparent

[Guest]

woah woah woah.

Privatising bus services does not mean selling roads. Privatising the Electricity services does not mean selling off the pylons to SSEAirtricity etc.

Transdev couldn't sell the LUAS lines for scrap metal.

You're fighting against something that nobody is suggesting should happen.

But one of the main plus points of Irish water we are told is that it will fix the many leaks in the system which lead to waste water . say down the line it was it was sold to someone like Macquarie group ,what incentive is there for them to fix leaks when they could ramp up the price and fuck the repairs,it eats into their bottom line.

[TheJiggaman]

it's pretty underwhelming tbh.
Obviously McG would increase the buyrates but for such a big event, the lack of something is all too apparent

Ya, it is lacking alright for such a big event, that's my biggest issue too. Lesnar was on 100 of course.

I don't think they'll be too stressed over buyrates because whatever they lose on this (I'd estimate about 700,000 buys) they will make up for on a future event that he wouldn't have been on.

If they hit the 1 million PPV buy mark they should be happy here and it probably will have worked out better for them in the long run not having McGregor vs Diaz on this card.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[RichieM]

But one of the main plus points of Irish water we are told is that it will fix the many leaks in the system which lead to waste water . say down the line it was it was sold to someone like Macquarie group ,what incentive is there for them to fix leaks when they could ramp up the price and fuck the repairs,it eats into their bottom line.

Really - you sell it to people who have a track record and put strict sla's in place.
If they fail to meet or don't even try then it is off to the courts to sue them for breach.

Also you don't sell the service you rent the allowance to provide it.

[Emmet]

But one of the main plus points of Irish water we are told is that it will fix the many leaks in the system which lead to waste water . say down the line it was it was sold to someone like Macquarie group ,what incentive is there for them to fix leaks when they could ramp up the price and fuck the repairs,it eats into their bottom line.

The contract that they sign....

(is that a serious question?)

[shrapnel]

skybet enhanced

torres and lewandowsky both to score 10/1

[darwinatemyhamster]

The best thing to come from Irish Water was teaching the Irish public a new word that could score mega points when stuck with a Q playing scrabble.

[Theresa]

I always view privatized state services as a sort of long term income investment, most companies that take on these services know that they will be guaranteed a forecastable return, with a forecastable risk over the long term.

Roulette wheels for service providers. No need to upset the apple cart by cutting costs or risking breach of contract, set it up in a profitable manner and let it ride.

[dobby]

Better Call Saul.

What a goal!

[Strewelpeter]

woah woah woah.

Everyone on the Anti IW side believes that this is a possible except for the deeply cynical populists who have actively been lying to them about it for years and making something that is a complete and utter non issue central.

[Strewelpeter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCJ15bAJ9E

Cliffs on how that could possibly be worth watching

[Guest]

Well presumably the people who run Thames water signed contracts not to be useless greedy assett stripping cockbags but it doesn't seem to have made a difference. So many examples of how privatisation can be disastrous (trains as well) over in England but our homegrown Tory boys seem happy to ignore it all for some reason
Congrats to everyone on ruining the thread today