We are packing up our house today, so just time for a quick post before I have to dissassemble the computer (I am also against the clock as we have already asked for our internet connection to be disconnected today, so it could go down at any second!).
It's surprising how much stuff you accumulate in just a few short years. Although most of the furniture we have here in Abu Dhabi belongs to Trowers (who I officially leave tomorrow), all of our possessions (books, DVDs, clothes, etc) will take some shifting.
Fortunately, this being the Middle East, the policy is very much "why do it yourself when you can get some nice Indian men to do it all for you." Consequently, it is a little unnerving (but probably par for the course) that whilst we are moving tomorrow, and the Indian packers are coming this afternoon, right now our house looks largely the same as it always has, with little to indicate the frantic ness (is that a word?) and mild panic that will descend in a few hours.
Oh well, I'm sure it will all go as planned (inshallah, as they say). If nothing gets lost or broken I will be genuinely amazed.
Anyway, from 1 March our contact details will be:
Home: 00971 4 361 9256
Tim Mobile: 00971 50 613 1083
Michele Mobile: 00971 50 419 1452
Jack Mobile: probably something that we'll end up getting him at an age that I would still consider to be way too early in life...
Postal address TBC.
Look forward to hearing from all/both of you readers soon.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
The bountiful game?
I don't presume to know a lot about either football (which many would say is self-evident from team of choice), or the economics of big business, but how can teams like Chelsea still be in existence when in this situation?
Is it not the case that any conventional company with such high (and historical, year on year) losses would have had the liquidators called in by now? If Chelsea has not made a profit in such a long time, and yet Roman Abramovich has poured in £500 million since taking over ownership, does this mean that he hasn't seen any benefit in return? That he hasn't invested enough to plug the hole? That what he is actually doing is simple damage limitation? To what end?
Does Chelsea (and I know it is not the only football club in such a financial position) simply continue to exist solely because of its status, on the argument that whilst it may not attract much attention for "A N Other Co Ltd" to be wound up, Chelsea Ltd is simply too well-known to go to the wall?
If it's making a loss, does that mean that shareholders are not reaping any dividends? How and why is the share price not plummeting?
People increasingly see football clubs not as "clubs" any more, but as big businesses, and yet conventional market forces seem not to affect them in the same way as they do other companies. For some reason, football clubs seem not to attract the negativity that would ordinarily attach to a company reporting such poor financial results. Indeed, somewhat perversely, a story like this finds the Chief Executive of the club in question interpreting such losses as an indication that "the business is moving in the right direction."
How???
Is it not the case that any conventional company with such high (and historical, year on year) losses would have had the liquidators called in by now? If Chelsea has not made a profit in such a long time, and yet Roman Abramovich has poured in £500 million since taking over ownership, does this mean that he hasn't seen any benefit in return? That he hasn't invested enough to plug the hole? That what he is actually doing is simple damage limitation? To what end?
Does Chelsea (and I know it is not the only football club in such a financial position) simply continue to exist solely because of its status, on the argument that whilst it may not attract much attention for "A N Other Co Ltd" to be wound up, Chelsea Ltd is simply too well-known to go to the wall?
If it's making a loss, does that mean that shareholders are not reaping any dividends? How and why is the share price not plummeting?
People increasingly see football clubs not as "clubs" any more, but as big businesses, and yet conventional market forces seem not to affect them in the same way as they do other companies. For some reason, football clubs seem not to attract the negativity that would ordinarily attach to a company reporting such poor financial results. Indeed, somewhat perversely, a story like this finds the Chief Executive of the club in question interpreting such losses as an indication that "the business is moving in the right direction."
How???
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Love is...
Valentines Day always seems to divide people 3 ways:
You have those who really go for it, with lots of cards, flowers, chocolates and more-expensive-than-it-would-be-on-any-other-day-of-the-year dinners for 2.
They you have those who buy the card only, because the rest is too over the top and, well, it's "just to keep the wife/girlfriend happy"...
And then you have those who think the whole thing is a scam to get you to spend money just to declare love on a specific day because the calendar dictates that you must. Increasingly, as the marital years accrue, Michele and I have moved through these 3 stages in chronological order, reaching stage 3 this year and agreeing in advance not even to bother with a card (our little rebellion against Messrs Hallmark and Clinton). Admittedly, this is because the selection here is so awful.
Were we in the UK, the situation may have been different. But it seems that all cards here are imported from the USA, in boxes which must only ever be labelled "overly sentimental" and "schmaltzy". (And while we're on the point, when will Americans realise that the conventional shortening of the word "Mother" is spelt with a U not an O in the middle?!!).
Anyway, with so much else on our plates at the moment (moving house coming along nicely, leaving job next week and baby growing in size - plus, as of today, Jack having tonsillitis) and with no decent cards to be found anywhere, the whole thing will pass us by. What romantics we are.
And anyway, I thought the whole point of Valentines Day was the sending of anonymous cards. I've never completely understood at what point that principle was expanded so as not to catch the entire card-buying public to the extent that you can now seemingly buy Valentines Cards for husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters (concerning), your kids (embarrassing), your pets (worrying) and even (I have seen them) other people's pets from yours (truly disturbing).
Oh well. Soon it will be "Happy Mom's Day"...
You have those who really go for it, with lots of cards, flowers, chocolates and more-expensive-than-it-would-be-on-any-other-day-of-the-year dinners for 2.
They you have those who buy the card only, because the rest is too over the top and, well, it's "just to keep the wife/girlfriend happy"...
And then you have those who think the whole thing is a scam to get you to spend money just to declare love on a specific day because the calendar dictates that you must. Increasingly, as the marital years accrue, Michele and I have moved through these 3 stages in chronological order, reaching stage 3 this year and agreeing in advance not even to bother with a card (our little rebellion against Messrs Hallmark and Clinton). Admittedly, this is because the selection here is so awful.
Were we in the UK, the situation may have been different. But it seems that all cards here are imported from the USA, in boxes which must only ever be labelled "overly sentimental" and "schmaltzy". (And while we're on the point, when will Americans realise that the conventional shortening of the word "Mother" is spelt with a U not an O in the middle?!!).
Anyway, with so much else on our plates at the moment (moving house coming along nicely, leaving job next week and baby growing in size - plus, as of today, Jack having tonsillitis) and with no decent cards to be found anywhere, the whole thing will pass us by. What romantics we are.
And anyway, I thought the whole point of Valentines Day was the sending of anonymous cards. I've never completely understood at what point that principle was expanded so as not to catch the entire card-buying public to the extent that you can now seemingly buy Valentines Cards for husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters (concerning), your kids (embarrassing), your pets (worrying) and even (I have seen them) other people's pets from yours (truly disturbing).
Oh well. Soon it will be "Happy Mom's Day"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)