Recent Posts

despite that 100, my index was cut from 27.3 to 27. My course handicap was 31 for the round. We were playing off the black tees, but the course isn't hugely long at 6000 yard of those tees. I think it must be the fast greens, where every putt needed correct pace and line that make the course difficult.

Click to see full-size image.

Uninspiring, but could have been worse.

ha ha I'm back in the 100 club as well

Went from 91 back to 100 today. Lost balls and 3 putts doing the damage. 😩

Click to see full-size image.

Blobs spoiled my round today but at least I didn't blob the dreaded 18th.

Click to see full-size image.

I hate the 18th on Moorlands. I blob it every time.

Feeling a bit sorry for Steve Clarke. 2 things made his job extremely difficult:-

1. The SPL, and particularly the Old Firm, do not provide the support they could. Celtic/Rangers provided 5 men in a 26-man squad. 3 Defenders, a GK who played 0 games in the SPL last year, and a Midfielder on loan at Kilmarnock. I appreciate budgets are tight-but if Celtic and Rangers spent as much on Scottish players as Japanese/English he would have had more of a chance. As examples, where are the youngsters coming through? Why is Gunn not playing any football?

2. The current 48 team format is totally unfair to the early Groups. Because the later Groups know exactly what is required to be a qualifying 3rd place finisher. Knowing FIFA, their solution will likely be a 64 team format

The monarch is not occupying the property. He refuses to live in it, and has made that public.

If-and only if-he chose to live in it then he might become liable for its upkeep. Although I rather doubt even then he would be responsible for a £250 million upgrade to a 778 room mansion whose main uses are purely ceremonial and have been due for decades, if not centuries.

You are referring to his duty to pay certain rents/upkeep when he invites friends and (non-working) family to stay in Crown property out of his own money.

Who do you think might be best placed to spend £250 million on a c.£7 Billion Palace-a King or a massive specialist property company, you know the ones who own the place on behalf of the nation. The ones who spend £hundreds of millions every year on lots of Crown properties.

If you believe there is no legal problem giving all the income and profits to 1 entity, and all the expenses are both to be paid for by someone else and there is to be no chargeback in relation to the net profits made by the Owner, then I'm going to disagree.

...
3. A decision has been made for that £250 Million to be part of the Sovereign Grant, rather than a business expense of Crown Estates
...

If the Monarch is occupying the property then it's the Monarch's responsibility to pay it out of their money

This is not a new thing

It is an established rule

The King hasn't received a windfall from the taxpayer - because that expense has not been taken away from the Crown Estate and given to the government (via the Monarch) - that expense was never the Crown Estate's to start with

[If]

Completely agree that Crown Estates are, by and large, beyond reproach.

The 1 problem that I am referring to in all of this relates rather more to the actions of Accountants/Accounting Rules and the Treasury, as opposed to Crown Estates.

I'm certainly no Accountant. But I will simplify this via making certain assumptions. Which will undoubtedly mean that the numbers will not be right. But the principle should be. So-for this purpose, let us assume:-

1. That the Monarch receives 20% of Net Profits (I believe for various years the figure was lower);
2. The Cost of upgrading Buck House is £250 million
3. A decision has been made for that £250 Million to be part of the Sovereign Grant, rather than a business expense of Crown Estates
4. A decision has been made that this is to be funded by the Treasury, rather than Crown Estates
5. As a result, the £250 million does not (as far as I can see) appear on the calculations in relation to net profit. Logically, because the decisions of 3/4 above have taken the expense outside the remit of Crown Estates, and into the remit of the Monarch and General Taxpayer. Making the "net" profits of Crown Estates rather higher than they might otherwise have been

If those figures are right, then the King has received a windfall from the Taxpayer of (20% x £250 million) =£50 million