Imagine the bailiffs coming round and you've got no physical possessions left.
'I've got 100 Pogba...'
The bailiffs laughing, 'you can keep those'.
@Ericali I'm guessing its the latter, if you had debt in real life, FI would be the first thing you got shot of. Imagine your possessions are being taken, your wife is crying but you're sat there saying 'I just need Di Maria to hold on for some PB here....fucking Draxler!'
@Karl well I work for the Financial Ombudsman Service and dealing with Payday Lenders and as far as I'm aware the gambling commission probably deal with any FI complaints currently. We only look at complaints against financial businesses such as banks, lenders etc and they have to be regulated by the FCA or a similar body for us to look into it. So if FI are moving towards being regulated by the FCA this would suggest they're trying to be taken seriously as an investment as opposed to a gambling site.
This would mean all the gambling talk has just been because they got a slap on the wrist and they hope with the NASDAQ and the FCA regulation they can move away from that and go back to being classed as an actual investment. I think spread betting sites are regulated by the FCA but other betting sites are through the gambling commission.
Being regulated by the FCA may mean a lot more strict guidelines to follow to make sure they're behaving themselves but it will also increase consumer trust, I don't have much experience of the gambling commission but I'd imagine having the FCA say FI is a sound business will mean quite a lot to people. I think it will protect people's money a bit better if FI were to go bust. The FCA will make sure FI has money to cover consumer losses, for example some sort of compensation scheme set up in case everything goes to shit. Might not be all of people's money but there may be some safety net put in place.
And finally they'll have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for complaints...the reputation isn't great at the minute but it's basically an alternative dispute resolution process if you've complained to say FI and they refuse to do anything, you can take it to the FOS for free and they might uphold the complaint. Just gives an extra option if you feel FI aren't pulling their weight.
All in all FCA regulation would mean the main financial regulatory board are keeping an eye on them, and I'd imagine their standards are more stringent than the Gambling Commission who'll probably just say 'well you knew the risk and you've fucked it, cheers'.
Sorry for the essay.
@Mr-Richard-T well I'll keep that in mind in future that you're keeping a close eye on me Richard. I've never claimed to be an influencer just like to get involved in the discussions, I find it the best way to learn, everyone starts somewhere. Sorry if you feel like I've come across like I know everything because that's never been my intention, I just say it as I see it, plenty of times I've conceded that others know better.
I mean you pretty much did suggest that by asking me what my port size, I'm glad you've cleared up that it wasn't relevant and it was more a personal thing against me.
Next time I say something you think is garbage, call me out at the time so I know or drop me a DM. Don't mind an experienced trader telling me I'm talking shit, all part of the learning process but the fact you've kept it bottled up and came at me after a pretty innocuous post is just a bit confusing and doesn't feel healthy.
I really don't want to seem like an arse licker and trust me I'd rather call you a cunt but not sure what it would achieve.
and also @Dan-The-Man, similar to Rob-E's baby comments, if we're calling a spade a spade we need to look at ourselves. This is why the main conflicts on this forum are so frustrating, everyone has become to stubborn and nailed their flags to the mast that they don't want to let it slip and accept any faults in their own behaviour.
I completely get the reaction to some of the more experienced users starting their own forum, calling it a cult is a bit dramatic but some people have previously shut you and others down a bit too quickly when a differing opinion has been put forward. But you surely can see that it works both way, someone could easily make the same 'cult like' comments about the other side of the argument and they way negative posters can all pile in at once and repeat the same mantra over and over - similar to the more optimistic FI users.
To be fair the bickering seems to have stopped, perhaps that's all everyone needed - bit of fanny cream. Well now that's all been resolved @NewUser395078 - the israeli-palestine conflict? What we saying? Peace treaty or...fanny cream? Yeah fanny cream it is.
@NewUser664633 you seem to know your shit and you're also clearly reasonable so by no means am I having a dig. But your posts seem to ignore dividends...do you think they're too small to be attractive or have you just not been here long enough to fully experience them?
I get your point regarding cap app, unless you have found a gem of a young player no one knows about then there isn't much scope for cap app in sight although if the product grows and more people/money joins when NASDAQ come in, we could see some cap app.
For me at the minute it's all about the dividends, during the bonus period I won about 50 quid from a port of about 1600 quid, not a bad return. I thought it would drop substantially after the bonus but I still took him around 30 quid without the bonus last week. So whilst the cap app aspect isn't there atm, there are still dividends and as long as you have faith in the players you bought, the values going up and down shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Also if you have time on your hands the volatility with the spreads after matches are finished presents lots of opportunities to make short term trades which can bring in small profit in the mean time. Appreciate you need time on your hands for this though.
Good luck with whatever you do though :)
Nice to see @Sherbet and @Dan-The-Man maintaining an adult conversation throughout that without the outside influences dragging another thread into personal insults. It can be done apparently. Made for a good read lads, some valid points either way.
Thing with the BBC is, if you ask a left leaning labour voter they'll tell you it's biased to the right, if you ask a right wing conservative voter they'll probably tell you it biased to the left. The truth as mentioned above, it's probably around the middle, it's gets things wrong as with all media outlets but compared to a lot it's actually pretty non-partisan in my opinion. I think the people who maybe feel it's overly biased and corrupt are those fighting the apparent 'culture war' because whilst not a purely left wing organisation, it promotes multiculturalism and inclusivity - which makes sense considering it wants to appeal to as many people as possible. I think some people see these values as being left wing maybe when in fact they're not really political, more just a mix of being reasonable and trying to appeal to as many of the public as possible.
Reading your comments @NewUser65276, and this isn't a dig, you seem like someone who is quite into this idea of the culture war, like the forum's answer to Laurence Fox. So I can see why you might have a dislike for the BBC and perceive it to be overly 'woke' or whatever term you'd like to use.
For me personally, I find it disturbing how much people get dragged into this imaginary battle that has been perpetuated by the rags for as long as I can remember. While there are serious things going in the world, you can guarantee Daily Mail will be baiting people out with stories about Christmas decorations, Lewis Hamilton or someone not signing a national anthem.
@NewUser65276 OK, thanks for clearing up your definition of it. So similar to the term 'social justice warrior' that I see thrown about. It's difficult these days because words get hijacked, turned into ironic insults. The lines become so blurred. I mean even just reading that definition makes me more confused about this chap who called me 'woke' when it was he who was searching for injustice and discrimination that didn't exist and was easily offended. It's a clusterfuck out in the internet comments section, never really know when someone is being genuine or shitposting behind layer upon layer of irony.
I'm aware of snowflake bud, big fan of Fight Club. It's another word that could be easily attributed to either side of an argument. Plenty of snowflakes on either side crying foul when something goes against them.
I never get this using woke as an insult, it's just one of those terms that doesn't really mean anything anymore. Like @9stevo pointed out, it's definition is just to be politically aware and it is normally linked with racial inequality. It's one of those terms that I'd cringe if someone described themselves as woke but it's not really an insult.
I had an argument with someone the other day that I didn't think ANTIFA were involved in the riot, and if they were, they weren't the organisers or main offenders as there is no evidence to suggest this. I was called 'woke' as an insult. I'm guessing he meant it ironically as in, I think I am aware of things but I'm very much not. He may have a point there but I'm not sure it's particularly woke to try and have a reasonable view based on factual evidence.
Just another buzzword to reduce people's points of view - leftist, libtard, woke brigade etc. And it works both ways, calling people racists or bigots before you really know their views. It's why there is literally no point in getting involved in these arguments anymore, 90% of the people in them have picked their side and they won't back down no matter what is said.
Anyway, have the bookies paid out on Trump yet or what? We should probably close this thread now.
@NewUser503685 the problem is it's hard to keep tabs on the organised forms of these movements, they end up breaking off into different subsets with different views - there are plenty non-violent Trump supporters for example, but after yesterdays events people will now label Trump supporters violent and the idiots storming the Capitol will forever represent Trump supporters/Proud Boys etc.
For me ANTIFA seems to be an aggressive anti-fascist movement, perhaps a reaction to the often 'soft' left. I had a quick google, couldn't find too much in the way of them beating up innocent people - happy to look at any links. But like I say, doesn't mean much, unfortunately idiots will get involved in any movement and act as such. The overarching message of ANTIFA isn't to beat up innocent people and destroy random businesses and I've not seen anything to suggest it is. Just like BLM's goal isn't to graffiti a cenotaph, but some dickheads did it and suddenly it's 'BLM's fault.
I also can't find much about 'whackpot' views of ANTIFA as a whole. Like I said, they're not as organised as people think, there will be loads of people who claim to be ANTIFA who hold different views. Just like some BLM members on twitter say they take inspiration from marxism this doesn't mean all people supporting the movement align with this (also, they're a left wing protest group fighting against racism, homophobia, sexism - hardly surprising they're influenced by Marx's work).
Like I say though, ANTIFA does seem to be a more aggressive form of anti-racism which probably only stokes the fire but some would argue, you have to 'fight fire with fire' - which seems to just create more issues in the long run shrug. I think the amount of times I've seen them mention in comparison to how many times they're actually involved in something might be a bit skewed, like I said earlier, Trump loves to create his own narrative and the amount of times he mentions ANTIFA is deliberate, to get them in his followers conscious.
I mean, fake news has always existed, look at the history books, full of it. Trump (among others) has invented this new version of it, which basically defines anything he doesn't like about him as fake news. He is part of the problem himself though as he spouts more bullshit than most and continues to actively promote the sharing of unverified news to his followers.
EDIT: Having done a very quick read, there's said to be 200 ANTIFA groups in the US alone. It's impossible for me to say whether I agree with the views, actions of all these people within these separate groups calling themselves ANTIFA. Some may be anarchists, some communists, some just people fighting for equality. It's a lot easier to just attach ANTIFA/BLM/ALT RIGHT to something rather than taking a more nuances approach.
@NewUser503685 linked to 0 murders in 25 years in the US but look I'm not saying anti-fascist groups haven't been violent, there will be violent people on all sides of any argument. I do like how ANTIFA have been turned into this big scary monster in the US when there is little evidence to suggest they are as organised as some make out - if you aren't a fascist, I wouldn't worry too much about a group who go round beating up fascists.
I think arguing the ANTIFA act like fascists will end up going down a rabbit hole because the only fascist thing I could associate them with is the fact they want to force their view on people, i.e they want fascists not to be fascist. Does that in turn make them fascist? I don't think it does but I guess some would disagree.
But in terms of violence, it's like any title...BLM for example, Proud Boys etc. Anyone can just say they are part of these groups and then do some dumb shit and it'll immediately be associated with the group. When I think of ANTIFA I think Anti-Fascism, when I think of BLM I think of the statement 'Black Lives Matter'. I don't tend to attach my self to the politics and behaviour of individuals who are forming the 'movements' if you will.
The original tweet associated a nazi flag with ANTIFA, it showed a pretty alarming lack of knowledge of what the 'movement' is about.
Very scary times ahead for Americans and in turn the rest of the world - I know @ocs123 was being a bit tongue in cheek but we shouldn't joke about a civil war breaking out. It would be a nightmare for the whole world and a lot of innocent people will end up hurt or worse, killed. And over what?
@Dan-The-Man Twitter has had my mind boggled. One person tweeting 'look this is ANTIFA communists, you can see the nazi flags!'
Oh boy, wait til that person finds out what ANTIFA stands for.
@ocs123 true, remember when Hilary Clinton supporters stormed the Capitol - what a fucking night that was ;)