Tigertool said:
But it did have one upside
DirtyDogTiger said:
The singer was Margaret Urlich who sang she elected not to appear in the video as she was recording in London at the time.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Controversial Opinions Thread
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
But it did have one upside
The singer was Margaret Urlich who sang she elected not to appear in the video as she was recording in London at the time.
Is this a clip from horses? Most shittest song ever, not liked at the time and now only played because recent borns dont know when they are having the *smile* taken out of them.brigadiertiger said:But it did have one upside
The singer was Margaret Urlich who sang she elected not to appear in the video as she was recording in London at the time.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Not so much an opinion as a pretty controversial question.
would a vegan perform oral sex on their partner and persist, right 'til the bitter end?
would a vegan perform oral sex on their partner and persist, right 'til the bitter end?
easy said:
They'd just close their eyes...if it looks like a carrot.....and acts like a carrot...it's a carrot
the AFL season should be reduced 18 rounds.
so why 18 and not 17? so every team has an equal number of home and away games. every team plays each other once and the 18th game is a second derby for the interstate teams, while the Victorian teams rotate a second game between them over a rolling 9 year cycle. And if you play a home game against a particular team one year, you will be away to them the next season (excluding the 18th game of course).
this leaves an extra 5 weeks spare:
- start the season in the first weekend of April (like it used to many years ago).
- 1 extra week for finals (move to a final 10 system, which is 2 times the McIntyre final 5 system, which greatly benefits the top 2 teams). some will say this will reward mediocrity, but teams 7-10 will have to win in 5 consecutive games, which will probably never happen.
- a 3 week break midseason to incorporate AFLW finals (the AFLW will eventually have to be extended into the AFL season once it expands and this is a way of giving them some clear air) and to allow players to freshen up before the run to the finals.
- no week off before the finals.
- no split rounds (hate em with a passion).
the idea behind this is quality over quantity. there will be less wear and tear on players, meaning they are fitter and playing better and sexier football. a shorter season means teams will remain in the hunt for finals for longer (especially with a final 10 system), meaning less rubbish lopsided games in the second half of the season that people don't wanna watch. This (in theory) will mean an increase in TV ratings, meaning there will be no drop TV rights money or player salaries.
so why 18 and not 17? so every team has an equal number of home and away games. every team plays each other once and the 18th game is a second derby for the interstate teams, while the Victorian teams rotate a second game between them over a rolling 9 year cycle. And if you play a home game against a particular team one year, you will be away to them the next season (excluding the 18th game of course).
this leaves an extra 5 weeks spare:
- start the season in the first weekend of April (like it used to many years ago).
- 1 extra week for finals (move to a final 10 system, which is 2 times the McIntyre final 5 system, which greatly benefits the top 2 teams). some will say this will reward mediocrity, but teams 7-10 will have to win in 5 consecutive games, which will probably never happen.
- a 3 week break midseason to incorporate AFLW finals (the AFLW will eventually have to be extended into the AFL season once it expands and this is a way of giving them some clear air) and to allow players to freshen up before the run to the finals.
- no week off before the finals.
- no split rounds (hate em with a passion).
the idea behind this is quality over quantity. there will be less wear and tear on players, meaning they are fitter and playing better and sexier football. a shorter season means teams will remain in the hunt for finals for longer (especially with a final 10 system), meaning less rubbish lopsided games in the second half of the season that people don't wanna watch. This (in theory) will mean an increase in TV ratings, meaning there will be no drop TV rights money or player salaries.
Ian4 said:
Agree, except the 3 week break and final 10. I reckon it should be final 6 using the Second McIntyre final six system.
TigerForce said:
the theory behind the final 10 system is to keep everyone's finals chances alive for as long as possible. This keeps everyone interested for longer. It also gives a better reward for finishing in the top 2, which most will agree isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be. I am also not against replacing the final 10 system with a the current final 8 system with 2 wildcard games... but again, it doesn't give the reward for the top 2 teams.
As for the McIntyre final 6 system, not way!!! it was the worst finals system the game has ever had. It just didn't work properly. If you were to bring in a final 6 system, the best one is the system that is used in the ALeague:
Week 1
Game 1: 3 v 6
Game 2: 4 v 5
(Team 1 and 2 have byes)
Week 2
Game 3: 1 v Lowest Ranked Week 1 Winner (Team 4, 5 or 6)
Game 4: 2 v Highest Ranked Week 1 Winner (Team 3, 4 or 5)
Week 3:
Game 5 - Grand Final: Highest Ranked Week 2 Winner v Lowest Ranked Week 2 Winner
Its a good system, but the major flaw is that its only a 3 week system of 5 games. 4 games less than the current system and the AFL would never consider something like this.
If think this couple should have been more prudent in their borrowing. Why blame the bank? They’re in it to make money.
One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6
One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6
Call me boring, but I've always taken the view that one should pay off their primary residence first, before thinking about buying others. The power of compounding is indeed a remarkable tool to create personal wealth. But people seem to be totally unaware of how compounding also works equally (or more) against you on the other side of the ledger and can erode any gains you're making. Like I said in another thread. It's surprising how large a part of the Aussie adult population is barely financially literate and don't understand the basics.Midsy said:
Sound like the bank should have done more checking but again, something doesn’t add up here.Midsy said:
“The bank grossly underestimated our expenditure “. Well, the applicant provides expenditures. Surely the applicant didn’t lie about expenditure.....
The applicant didn’t realise the interest only period would end.....Seriously? On 5 occasions of borrowing money they never understood how long their interest only period was? Incredible.
They got $1.8m loaned over 5 properties on 1 salary? Unless that one salary was h[b]uge[/b] I don’t understand how this can happen.
If I read between the lines here the mortgagees got greedy and wanted a portfolio of properties and when the interest only periods ended their repayments shot up and they couldn’t afford the repayments.
What responsibilities are this couple taking for their own actions? None it seems. Seems it’s better to cry about the big bad banks and shift the blame on to them. The age of entitlement continues.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Theres nothing really controversial,
About dumb people watching the block, deciding that real estate is free money, mortgaging and leveraging and over extending, then going broke and spending sundays cleaning spew out of the back seat of their ubered camry.
About dumb people watching the block, deciding that real estate is free money, mortgaging and leveraging and over extending, then going broke and spending sundays cleaning spew out of the back seat of their ubered camry.
Westpac did the calculations on what base line living expenses should be. This couple also lived beyond their means and were not prepared to pull their head in. As a result the banks now need to review ones living costs and not take a clients written living costs down to make sure they can afford their lifestyle. Now people have very high incomes but are good spenders are getting shocks that they can’t get a home loan and again blame the bank and the RC.
Midsy said:
Back to living pay cheque to pay cheque and tax return to tax return. Says it all really.
Funny thing is without the negative gearing they will likely have to lodge dodgy expense claims to get a tax refund. Can just see her asking her tax agent where her $8K refund is and blaming him for claiming everything correctly.
Although I wonder how they could end up worse off given the property price increases over the last decade. Over what period were the 5 properties obtained, surely not in the last year or so? Even if they paid interest only and allowing for transaction costs they should have had some substantial gains.
What will be even funnier is when they lodge their tax returns and have capital gains tax to pay! I can just imagine the dumb questions she will have.
tigertim said:
Year beggars belief.
You would assume 1 salary and 4 rentals perhaps if they were half smart - still lot needed to cover that debt.
Agree with MD - over the last 5 years there should be 3 years of property appreciation to bank on, again if they were half smart, sell the properties and you would hope you have made a handy little profit - unless they were just plain naive and greedy and wanted to keep all the properties.
Not many people in Aus percent wise would own 5 properties I would have thought - reckon the banks will win this one.
Actually just read the full article, they purchased 3 properties in 2013/2014. As long as they purchased in a capital city they should have enjoyed some growth.
And the actual cash cost of holding the 3 investment properties (if houses in capital cities) shoulodn't be too much after taking into account negative gearing. I wonder if they were in both names or just the wage earner?
I bet they've invested in managed holiday apartments in Hervey Bay or some such *smile*.
And the actual cash cost of holding the 3 investment properties (if houses in capital cities) shoulodn't be too much after taking into account negative gearing. I wonder if they were in both names or just the wage earner?
I bet they've invested in managed holiday apartments in Hervey Bay or some such *smile*.
year of the tiger said:
I always wondered why you hear someone say at a party I have 4 investment properties and everyone goes good on ya mate, having a go, but if you say I own 1000 CSL shares people we think stuck up wanker. No one every asks having a go mate how much equity he has. And often he may not know what you mean.
poppa x said:
You know who’s a seriously scary (if not hilarious) singer : yoko ono.
She’s got this screechy wail thing she does.
