Westie1889

The hotel was profitable but had to be sold with vacant possession as a result of the court case between the previous owner and Prince Abdullah. There is an agreement in place with the Hilton group for it to re-open but the club needs to spend several million on fixtures and fittings (as Copthorne stripped it) and some cladding issues. They chose not to do so and to put that cash into the first team budget - a successful strategy! Now promotion is secured I’m sure it will start to be looked at again. Was always busy and not just on match weekends, probably the best standard hotel along with the Mercure (Peace Gardens) in the city centre when it was open.

It’s crazy how busy they are but I’m pleased for them. I had a tree surgeon round in October and he was fully booked through March. Also we’re due to have an extension but the architect has advised us to wait until next year as anyone decent is now booked for the next 12 months. Architects are also really busy with a 2 month wait before they can start with any new clients. I

I don’t have to argue with you about your point on Ireland as it’s not something I have much knowledge of and I‘ve not commented against it as I have no reason to doubt what you say. However you did throw a lazy insult my way but choose not to discuss it - I’ll assume that’s because you can’t. I’ve found a lot of your posts insightful as you obviously have a good knowledge into some of the political/legal machinations due to your job and I’ve not noticed a particular bias, in particular you called out the EU move on Irish border controls as the disaster that it was so I’ve ways thought you are pretty fair and sensible . Maybe this has changed so I’ll leave you to it.

Where did anyone mention the word sponge? we were talking about economics and using data that is out there - sorry for being factual. Migrants obviously give benefits other than purely taxes in and out, a glaring example is the NHS where migrants bring the skills we need so badly. They also create value for their businesses but whether that translates to increased taxes is a moot point when you look at the likes of Amazon and how they handle their tax affairs. My background in terms of education is economics so that’s why I put the points across as I did, emotion or bias to one view or another doesn’t come into it - it’s purely data driven and based on well known economic models e.g supply and demand and it’s effect on wages. The problem with the whole Brexit debate is that neither side speaks the truth, everything is twisted to suit personal biases then lazy tropes are thrown around, it’s really tiring and childish. Like it or not we have left now, people need to get on with the serious work of making the best of it but if people go around with closed minds or ignore the evidence on both sides of the argument then they really have no credibility.

It would be an amazing turn of events if the push for Scottish independence was to falter due to a very public falling out between its two main protagonists. The 3rd party evidence yesterday that backs up some of Salmonds key claims does seem to be a major problem for Sturgeon, it will be interesting what she says today.

That’s correct, it runs through Ecclesall woods where it is fed by small orange streams coming from the old mine workings then forms the start of the Sheaf near Dore & Totley train station.

It depends what happens ref: immigration policies and whether this and subsequent governments look for similar migration levels outside of the EU. EU migration has a very minimal positive economic benefit when based on direct and indirect taxes raised vs what the system has to provide for those migrants and their families. Non-EU migration has a huge net cost so it’s true if we replace EU migrants with non-EU migrants the UK will be significantly worse off. Robert Peston (a remainer) commissioned analysis that showed the net benefit from EU migration was around £5bn over a 5 year period whilst the cost of non-EU migration in the same period was something like £500bn so a huge difference. The key is what type of migration we want and need, low skilled and low wage migration based on the new earnings ceiling will stop or businesses will have to pay higher wages if they want it - a ‘win-win’ in my view for both UK workers and migrants. The labour market for lower skilled/wage jobs will swing back to a fairer position and one which economists would recognise as a true ‘market’ rather than the previous situation which was distorted massively in the favour of businesses. This resulted in wage deflation for the bottom 30% and abhorrent contract situations where a working person doesn’t know what they are going to earn in a particular week. The other potential longer-term benefit not covered by many commentators is that many if not most of low wage earners do not pay tax or pay very little as they need everything they earn just to survive. Rising wages could tip this balance to the benefit of the Treasury but it will take time. If everything stays the same as during EU membership then I agree what you say would be true based on economic realities, but economies adjust based on opportunities individuals see and government policy. There are lots of opportunities despite what people say, within my own industry I can highlight several where the new tariff regime has given UK importers a distinct cost advantage over those in the EU. It’s a case of people letting the dust settle and then taking advantage of them. I also accept there will be downsides and losses, but it’s certainly not one-way traffic. What I do agree on is that prices will rise and we will all need to pay more for the things we buy, especially in the short-term. Long-term rising wages should cover this adjustment but in the short-term businesses and the top and middle income tax payers (like myself) will have to be taxed a bit more to help the lower earners make that transition.

Couldn’t agree more, it’s the downsides of Brexit times 10. I also agree with the need for constitutional reform, but I doubt that will satisfy the SNP.

Brexit will cost the UK economically, around 4% lost GDP growth in the next decade according to the Bank of England, anyone who thought it would make them rich has truly been misled. However, I also think part of Brexit was a desire for political change within the UK, especially in the regions. There is an argument to say this cry for help has been heard with the governments leveling-up agenda. Understandably there will be scepticism about whether this is delivered but the re-writing of the Treasury investment rules are a major step towards this. Also the impact of freedom of movement on the lowest 30% of workers wages will start to be reversed once the economy returns to normal times, and I have written on here before about how it is already causing higher wages in part of the industry I work in. Hopefully it will also lead to better working conditions and more stable contracts for people once businesses have to compete more for a smaller pool of labour. Other benefits not considered by the BofE forecast but of great importance to people are things like pressures on vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and housing. The UK was on track for what many felt was in-sustainable population growth. I do get that some of these pressures could have been solved by government but both Labour and the Tory’s failed so Brexit was a way of people making that choice themselves. There are obviously a whole host of other non-GDP downsides, from loss of FoM to non-tariff barriers, and for some people a loss of identity. Ultimately I think we will end up a bit poorer overall as a nation but perhaps a lot fairer, especially for those towards the bottom of society.

I honestly can’t see how Scotland rejoins the EU. It will be very interesting when the SNP publishes its economic plans as that was seen as its Achilles heal in the last vote, especially questions around currency. They will have to join the euro but are miles away from meeting the necessary criteria, and to get to the right place they would need a level of austerity not seen since the Greek crisis. Some feel the EU may relax it’s rules but the euro is not a risk-free currency with questions still hanging over its long term viability so I don’t this they would or should increase that risk. Also there seems to have been a growing reluctance in the wealthier countries to admit more poorer countries who would be met beneficiaries of which Scotland would be one. If there is another vote it could be a reverse of the Brexit scenario where people understand more about what they are voting for before they do it which I think will be a difficult thing for the SNP to surmount. That said these things are not always logical, and the rabid level of nationalism and anti-English hatred north of the border could force through even when it’s clear it would be a disaster.

Manchester airport is a bit tired in places but they are spending a billion to expand and renovate it with the terminal 2 expansion last year being the first step so it will outgrow any airport in the north by some distance. Doncaster is a lovely little airport and so convenient but in terms of business I’ve only been able to use it for Warsaw and Eindhoven and I think the Eindhoven flight has now stopped. They did fly to Dublin but the times are not really convenient when I last looked.

Totally agree, we should have more connectivity not less - so much for the Northern Powerhouse. Its not just Sheffield but all the areas to the East as the train originates in Cleethorpes. Most people traveling regularly on business don’t have the time or inclination to waste hanging around the airport unnecessarily, it’s another blow to productivity caused by a poor transport system. I get the whole line and Piccadilly needs improving but to cut off a direct airport route is a major retrogressive step IMO.

Wow 10% that’s huge, I must have been lucky. I see quite a few delays on the Northern services at Dore but hopefully that gets sorted when they finally carry out the work they have planned, although saying that it was originally planned for 2017 I think so don’t hold your breath.

In a perfect world yes I would too but I travel too much to allow lots of room for error or I would spend half my week in train stations and airports hanging around etc tbf the direct train is very reliable, I usually aim to get there 1 hour minimum before my flight and haven’t missed one yet. I expect I will use Manchester less if they change things and will fly out of London more as I’m down there every Monday in the office. It seems typical of UK infrastructure projects, to make something better we will make something else worse - crazy really. Most airports in Europe I use have really good public transport connections for the wider area, In Germany the inter city connections have airports as key hubs so you can go directly to most places really quickly after you land. Italy is good too and even some parts of Spain as long as you aren’t trying to go north to south or vice versa. With our relatively small geography surely we should be doing better than this?

Spot on it’s a major link and with the planned growth at Manchester airport it would be a shame for Sheffield to be even further away time-wise. I use it (or did pre-Covid) for work flights at least a couple of times a month and more through the winter, it will make business travel more difficult, especially the early morning flights as the extra time and greater risk due to more connections probably makes for an overnight stay at the airport. I used to drive but missed flights due to accidents etc on the roads so the train is the best way. If this happens I think that Sheffield then has no direct rail link to an airport - not great when trying to pitch for investment in the city internationally.