Donald Trump: The King of Debt [Video]

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the USA, is pretty outrageous at times. What he says about the economy, national debt and borrowing doesn't help him either. 

The Cost of Chelsea's Failure

The past 10 months have been miserable for the blue part of South West London. From the very first day, Chelsea Football Club's season has been embroiled with controversy, instability and most importantly, failure. 



In any season of the Abramovich era, the scale of Chelsea failure would have been shocking- but coming after a season of winning the Premier League/Capital One Cup double with such comfort, no one saw this coming.

It's no difficult task to quantify Chelsea's overall lacklustre performance. Last season, with 30 games played, Chelsea were cruising in 1st place, with 70 points and a game in hand over second placed Arsenal, who were 7 points behind. The Capital One Cup was in the bag. This season, after 30 PL games, Chelsea are 10th in the league. On 41 points, and for the first time in a very long time, having drawn more matches than won. Elsewhere, the Blues were disposed of with relative ease from the Champions League and FA Cup by PSG and Everton respectively, and, well, it'd be better not to mention the Capital One Cup.

Now, much is made of the excesses of money in football- something that, no doubt, Chelsea have profited from massively over the past decade or so. But while this excess has rewarded success generously, it has equally put failure at a massive cost. Especially for a club like Chelsea, who have performed so consistently in recent years.

Premier League Prize Money 2014-15
[sportingintelligence.com]

Chelsea's Premier League struggles will cost them. Last season, the club won the largest ever Premier League prize bounty of £99m. Now, of course, any estimates of this year's prize money are totally dependent upon how we predict Chelsea will finish this year. If we assume merit payments (the portion of prize money dependent upon final position in the table) will stay the same as last year (in reality it will most likely increase, a little), Chelsea will lose out on £11m.

This won't be the greatest cost of failure this season, for Chelsea, however. Had Chelsea not lost to PSG and gone on to the final of the UEFA Champions League, they could have netted an extra £30m over the £18.7m they earned this year*. If they had won it, they could have earned up to £42m more.

But to be honest, while Chelsea were expected to go far in the UCL at the start of the year, few expected the Blues to win the competition- so perhaps these aren't the costs we should be thinking about. What we should be remembering is that, thanks to a terrible Premier League season, remaining in and winning the Champions League was Chelsea's last, thin hope of playing the Champions League next year. Knocked out of that by Paris Saint Germain, and now being very unfeasible that Hiddink's men will rise up the table to fourth from 11 points behind, Champions League football will not be visiting Stamford Bridge until at least August 2017. This has serious financial consequences.

It means that as substantial an amount of money won, even from such a disappointing campaign as this year's, will not reach the club accounts until at least the 2017/18 season. Even if they qualify for the Europa League next year, the prize money amounts for the two competitions are night and day. Tens of millions will be lost from Chelsea's failure to qualify for next year's Champions League, and this will most likely be the biggest financial consequence of the team's failures this season.

With chances of Champions League football next
season pretty much gone for Chelsea, we won't be
seeing similar celebrations any time soon.

To put these losses into perspective, remember that Chelsea Football Club, despite the footballing success and achieving its second highest ever turnover of £314m, lost £23.1m last season, with no particular massive expenditures to justify the loss. It's worrying to think that what the next two years have in store for Chelsea's finance when you consider such a loss, during one of the club's successful years.

UEFA'S Financial Fair Play Regulations are tightening for the next 3 years, allowing only a loss of €30m (£23m) to be incurred in each season. Now, I'm pretty sure the club would have some sort of way to avoid substantial consequences, even if they did break this rule. But if Chelsea were to fall foul of the FFP regulations next season and be punished, it would not just be a huge embarrassment for the club, but it could restrict their re-entrance into the Champions League, worsening the financial issues.

The Blues' finances will be made worse by the fact that this failure will necessitate the club to spend more, particularly on the acquisition of players. With a new manager coming in, the squad looking weak in a number of areas, and a number of key players set to leave in the search of UCL football next season, Chelsea will have to spend big this summer to rebuild the squad. It will be interesting to see how the club manages to balance finances- after all, investment is required to open up future successes, but in the short term will only worsen the financial situation.

Chelsea have some big investments to make in the near
future- not least the £500m renovation of Stamford Bridge.

Not only is Chelsea due to invest in players, but it is also working on a drastic renovation of its stadium, Stamford Bridge, a project expected to cost over £500m. Failure to get back on to track financially over the next few years will jeopardise this grand project.

This is, you could say, a pessimistic look at Chelsea's financial prospects for the next year or two. But, it is indeed a situation that the club must be aware of, and one that teaches us the perils of failure in football as well as the gifts of success. The bigger you are, the harder you fall- and while it is unlikely (hopefully!) that Chelsea will collapse as a result of this season's failures alone, the financial effect will no doubt be felt hard.

What's your opinion on this matter? Will failure this season leave Chelsea in the lurch for the future or do you think will they bounce back quickly? Leave a comment below! 

*Estimates made from statistics from Total Sportek.

Supply Side 'Trickle-down' economics- does it work?

Supply-side (or 'trickle down') economics has for the past few decades been one of the discreet tenets of Western economy. It's the belief that giving financial benefits to the wealthiest of society (in the way of tax cuts/breaks, regulatory advantages given to big businesses) will inevitably benefit society as a whole, as the wealth will 'trickle down' the economic ladder in the form of employment, pay rises or whatever else of the extra wealth the richest will generously share with the rest of the population.

It's been a policy the conservatives of America has held ever so close to their hearts, and one that has faced much opposition by the lower and middle classes of America.

So how did trickle-down begin?

A turning point was certainly in the 1980s, during the divisive periods when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were in power in the USA and UK respectively.
Perhaps never have two leaders either side of the Atlantic been so harmonious- Reagan curiously dubbed Thatcher "the most important man in England", and Thatcher once described Reagan as "the second most important man in my life".
The harmony of the two certainly extended to economic policy; both leaders were strongly influenced by the Chicagoan and Austrian schools of economics, the proponents of which included notable anti-regulation, free-marketers Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

Trickle-down was one of their most prominent legacies. Thatcher and Reagan carried out drastic economic changes that were designed towards 'supply-side economics' (another name for trickle-down). The most important relevant policy change was that of tax rate changes.
In the USA, the Tax Reform of 1986 saw the top tax rate for individuals drop from 50% to 28%, partly compensated for by an increase of the bottom rate of tax from 11% to 15%. This was the very first time in the history of the USA that the top rate of tax fell at the same time as the bottom rate rising.
In the UK, Thatcher followed suit by dropping the top rate of tax from 80% to 63%, meanwhile almost doubling VAT (Value-added tax) and the amount everyone had to pay to fund the National Health Service. However, she did indeed drop the common tax rate from 33% to 30%.

So what were effects of these trickle-down policies?
Let's remember, the motivation supposedly behind trickle-down economics was that the population as a whole would benefit from the wealthy being wealthier. The idea is that as the national wealth pie grows as a result of the richer getting richer, everyone else's pie would simultaneously grow as a result.
So has it worked?
Well, a certainly interesting effect is encapsulated well in the following graphic:

Comparison of wages of the top 1%, overall wages and productivity.
(Mother Jones) 

Note the real separation point on the graph, where the average income of the top 1% really lifts off- it's after the turn of the decade, through the 1980s- conveniently the decade of Reagan's presidency.

Note not just how the income of the top 1% rises incredibly, that as productivity increases the average overall wages of the population lags behind, barely increasing in relation to the other two factors in the chart.
The meaning of this is pretty unpleasant- the 'pie of wealth' may have increased, but this chart suggests that more prominent has been a relocation of sorts of national wealth.
The wages of the overall population has suffered since the 1980s when it is considered that productivity has boosted- the overall population have not benefited in terms of wages from this increase. Instead the wages of the wealthiest have been boosted far more than before the 80s.
CEOs in 1965 made 24 times more than the average production worker- in 2009, this figure was 185.

It seems clear that wages of the middle and lower classes, contrary to the motives of supply-side economics, have suffered as a result of the policy- meanwhile clearly the wealthiest have benefited HUGELY.

So why haven't most of the population benefited- a key belief of the theory is that it's better for everyone if the wealthy are wealthier, right?

Buffett has been a prominent opponent
of trickle-down economics.

Here there is a great fault in the trickle-down ideology- reduction in the taxes enforced upon the wealth is itself no guarantee of further reinvestment into the economy.
This is because the benefits are being given to people who are not in need of it. Little is in the way of CEOs creating new jobs to further production- most already have the capital available to invest where they see fit.
Warren Buffett (pictured right), one of the wealthiest men in the world, and perhaps the most prolific investor claimed "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off". Taxes are rarely a stumbling block for the wealthiest, who are willing to take risks to invest (most entrepreneurs are where they are now as a result of their calculated risks).
Therefore tax cuts to the wealthy rarely open the doors to new investments. Instead it leads to simply a further amassing of wealth by the wealthy. By no means will the wealthy invest everything they benefit from tax cuts, to the gain of the middle and lower classes as the theory suggests. A staggering example of this is how currently the top 1% of wealthiest people in the world control 39% of the world's wealth. This is a clear sign of a broken global system, a large part of which is thanks to trickle-down.

Trickle-down, supply-side, Reaganomics, whatever name it is called, is a lie.

The solution lies not in blessing the wealthy with benefits and hoping that it will filter down to the rest of society, but the solution lies in the middle class. We need to make the middle the centre of our economic system, and see middle-out growth that will benefit everyone (yes, including the wealthy).

Middle-out. That is the solution we need.

Sources for this article can be found linked within.

12 Ways A Stronger US Dollar Affects The Global Economy

During the last few years, the US dollar has grown in strength. Uncertainty about the world economy has led many investors and others to turn to the US dollar. Because the greenback is backed by what many consider the most stable tax base in the world, it is considered very safe. On top of that, the US economy is still the largest, and the greenback is still the de facto global currency. It’s hard to argue against the viability of the US dollar, and with all of the uncertainty right now, it’s not surprising that many turn to the greenback for a reliable investment.

However, a stronger US dollar has very real impacts. For decades, the dollar was weakening relative to other currencies. But now, the situation has changed.Even  if the change ends up being only temporary. here  are some of the ways a stronger US dollar affects the economies of the United States and Europe:

1. US Domestic Industries Struggle with Input Costs

For US companies with foreign workers in developing nations, a stronger dollar means input costs related to labor are smaller, since a stronger dollar can buy more of a weaker currency. That’s not the story in the United States, though. With a stronger dollar, it means that US domestic labor, paid for in US dollars, is more expensive. There isn’t a lot of flexibility for these types of companies to compete on price without seeing thinner margins. As ISM falls, there is potential for GDP growth to slow as well.

2. US Exporters Likely to See Losses

Earnings season once again reminds us that US companies exporting to other countries are likely to see problems related to a stronger US dollar. With the dollar stronger relative to other currencies, it means that exporters have to lower their prices in order to prevent buyers in other countries from turning to less-expensive alternatives. This impact on US company earnings can mean a lower stock market, as well as other economic consequences.

3. European Companies Can’t Raise Prices

The ECB has been trying to keep the eurozone economy on life support since the sovereign debt crisis. Recently, the ECB instigated a quantitative easing program to help stimulate the economy with the help of inflation. However, a stronger US dollar means that it’s going to be harder for European countries to raise prices, even with the help of a policy that encourages inflation. This means a difficult time for European companies and earnings, even if eurozone countries gain a little help in the realm of export.

4. Some European Exports Might be More Attractive

With a stronger dollar on tap, some European exports might be seen as more attractive. However, this may not happen to a significant  extent unless EUR/USD actually reaches parity – or the dollar strengthens to the point that it is worth more than the euro. If the dollar’s rally continues, the eurozone might get a little export help as more buyers turn to more moderately priced goods from a weaker currency. That could help the eurozone economy recover a bit, and be useful in the event that European companies can’t raise domestic prices.

5. Germany Likely to Benefit From Exports

The German economy is likely to be the biggest winner from increased exports. German exports will be cheaper and more attractive, thanks to a strong dollar. While this is likely to help the eurozone economy overall, the fact of the matter is that it is also likely to continue to widen the gap between German economy and the eurozone economies on the periphery.

6. US Consumers See Cheaper Fossil Fuels

During the last few years, as oil prices have risen and fuel has become more expensive in the United States, strides toward an economy less dependent on fossil fuels have been made. However, now that the greenback is gaining strength, oil, which is denominated in dollars, is lower in cost. With cheaper fossil fuels comes a shift away from the development of the sustainable energy economy, and that could impact the overall economy down the road if oil prices rise again.

7. Oil Doesn’t Fall as Much for Europeans

While oil prices are lower in Europe, because of a stronger dollar, the difference would not be so  great. The currency difference means that the drop wouldn’t allow European consumers to keep as much money in their pockets (for spending on other things) as US consumers have.

8. European Tourism Industry Grows

Eurozone countries are seeing increases in their economies thanks to tourism from the United States. US tourists are visiting eurozone countries because it’s cheaper for them to do so, with the value of the euro down relative to the value of the dollar. European economies might see a little extra boost in tourism, as long as the dollar remains strong.

9. Fewer Tourists to the United States

Of course, the flip side to a growth in tourism in eurozone economies is a decrease in tourism to the United States. A stronger dollar means it’s more expensive to visit the United States, something that might pinch the American hospitality industry.

10. Cuts to US Imports Could Keep Inflation in Check

The Federal Reserve has a target inflation rate of 2.0%.. Right now, the inflation rate is nowhere near that level, and it’s not likely to do so anytime soon., because the cut to import prices (a stronger dollar means that imports to the United States appear cheaper to consumers and others) will keep inflation in check. While the Fed has said it will look at a range of factors – including unemployment – before raising rates, there really isn’t much reason to raise rates as long as other factors keep inflation in check.

11. United Kingdom Acts as an Economic Bridge

Even countries not involved in the eurozone are feeling the impact of a strong US dollar. The United Kingdom has been a sort of “go between” since the dollar has strengthened. The pound has weakened relative to the dollar, but remains strong relative to the euro. Britons can add to the rise in tourism seen in the eurozone, and continue to act as an economic bridge between the United States and the eurozone.

12. Russia Sees Mixed Results

Another European country impacted by the strong US dollar, but that isn’t using the euro, is Russia. Russia sees mixed results from a strong dollar. On one hand, a strong dollar means better export numbers for the relatively weak ruble. On the other hand, though, the strong dollar is driving down oil prices, and that hits Russia in one of its biggest economic supports.

This article was written by Miranda Marquit, and provided by Andriy Moraru- editor at EarnForex. Check out EarnForex if you want to gain a better understanding of how currencies and economic indicators work together, and how you can benefit from global currency moves.

The benefits of privatisation.

In the previous article we went through a brief introduction of privatisation; now let's go onto the benefits of it.

The benefits come under various categories, however a theme runs throughout- that is of efficiency, a key component of business management.

A prominent difference between private and state companies is the (usual) difference in motive. Whereas state companies can have an unclear, difficult-to-measure motivation (usually to 'serve the public'), private companies are generally far more strictly profit-driven; they seek to serve shareholders primarily (who want their pockets to be lined handsomely).
Now there is debate over whether profit is such a good motive for companies (that we'll discuss in the next article), but profit motivation usually drives companies to increase their efficiency.

A common criticism of state-owned enterprise is its tendency to over-employ, often in order to score the ruling political power popularity points when it came to annual employment figures. Another crucial factor in this overemployment was the power of unions- public-owned enterprises were often under strong pressure from labour unions to avoid firing staff, which in many cases was not so helpful in terms of keeping staff in line and also efficiency.

Overemployment is crucial as it leads to increased losses in the form of wages, for employees who the company could, essentially, perform healthily without. Private companies tend to avoid inefficient practices such as overemployment- in fact they look at doing the contrary, to shed costs: and cutting down on staff is often the easiest way to do this.

British Airways, under Lord King's leadership developed from
an oversized, outstretched struggler to a world-class airline.

The privatisation of British Airways was notable for its crackdown on 'unnecessary' employees. Before privatisation, BA were employing almost 60,000 staff; a huge number, especially when compared to close competitor Qantas' 15,000.
However, following privatisation and under the rugged leadership of Lord King, the workforce was reduced to 38,000 in a period of just three years- among these over 50 senior executives, the company was rebranded entirely to a more 'American' style- enlisting help of a San Francisco-based design firm to lead rebadging, and cutting costs wherever possible- in inefficient flight routes, in excess staff members and so on.
These almost ruthless cutdowns paid dividends indeed- in 1987 BA posted after-tax profits of around £166 million, among the highest airline profits globally and certainly one of the highest BA had ever experienced.

Introduction of competition is often heralded as a crucial feature of privatisation. Privatisation often comes with an opening of the market to other private companies as well, a good example being the gas market following the privatisation of British Gas. Competition is often a great thing to have in a market, as it forces companies to innovate and provide what consumers want, in order to maintain and expand their market share (and receive more profits, of course). Competition introduces pressure on businesses; often a good influence from a customer's perspective.
This argument has its pitfalls- but in general competition in a market is necessary for development (think how competition between Apple and Samsung has boosted the rate of development in the technology market, or BMW and Mercedes the car market).


Another feature of privatisation is that it is a a way for a government to quickly raise some cash, to reduce deficits in particular. Between 1979 and 1999, the Treasury raised over £70 billion from asset sales such as that of British Airways, British Gas and other companies that were privatised.
However, this is not such a strong proponent of the pro-privatisation argument as we'll explore in the next article (but I'll give you a hint: *cough* Royal Mail *cough*)

So efficiency is the general theme of the pro-privatisation argument. Privatisation can cut down on the poor decisions driven by political motives rather than efficiency, it can introduce competition into a market by smashing state monopolies and it can be a quick boost to a nation's coffers.

Stick around: next time we'll explore the other side of this argument, and have a look at why privatisation may be in fact quite a bad idea.

SOURCES:
http://www.baserler.com/onur/isletme/Privatization%20of%20British%20Airways-Before%20and%20After.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R1YVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a-QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4326,3087813&dq=staff+british+airways

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Airways.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/9989430/Thatchers-legacy-how-has-privatisation-fared.html

Privatisation: what is it?

Royal Mail- the latest major privatisation. 

Privatisation: it's been a contentious issue in the UK, especially since the Thatcher era. It's salvation to some, a criminal act to others.

Thatcher, guided by the principles of free-market, non-interventionist saint Friedrich Hayek, led the privatisation of over 50 British public sector companies- notably British Gas, British Telecom (BT) and British Leyland (see, the names all make sense now). It's interesting how privatisation has integrated into our society over the last 30 years or so- while there was outroar from many when Thatcher privatised utility, automotive, financial industries and so on, nowadays it's difficult for much of the youth to believe that companies like BT, Jaguar and British Airways could be owned by their government.

So what is privatisation? It's a relatively simple concept to explain- there are various particular types of it, but privatisation is essentially the transfer of public, nationally owned assets (companies in this case) into private hands, which can be via sale, like we saw recently with Royal Mail.
Royal Mail was until recently a public sector company, essentially run by the government- but in October 2013 the company was broken up into shares and sold on the stock exchange (it was later
discovered to have been shockingly undervalued). It was open to investment from anyone.
A portion of the Royal Mail is still owned by the government via an intermediary, 10% by its 150,000 staff, and significant amounts are owned by foreign state-backed organisations from countries such as Kuwait and Singapore.

So, that's a basic introduction to privatisation- but stick around for a more detailed evaluation of the benefits and negatives of this controversial transformation. It'll certainly be an interesting ride.

SOURCES (and recommended reads): 

Margaret Thatcher: one policy that led to more than 50 companies being sold or privatised http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/9980292/Margaret-Thatcher-one-policy-that-led-to-more-than-50-companies-being-sold-or-privatised.html

Royal Mail: Government of SINGAPORE is the second biggest private owner of our postal service

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/singapore-governments-sovereign-wealth-fund-2558278#ixzz3BaHXfUtW 

Royal Mail: Sovereign Funds To Get Shares
http://news.sky.com/story/1152622/royal-mail-sovereign-funds-to-get-shares

Why Do We Buy Designer Clothes?

VIDEO: http://bit.ly/XHuw51

I was in a Ralph Lauren store just yesterday- being the unenthusiastic spender that I am I had been attracted by the large sign in the window that boasted of 'Generous Savings'.

A thousand pounds for a jumper, anyone?

I went in, walked straight to the sale rack and I saw these 'Generous Savings'- a white V-neck sweater was the first to catch my eye. Knowing Ralph Lauren is something of a 'prestigious' brand, I expected it to be overpriced- perhaps £100, on sale at half price to £50?

But no. I was wrong. Very wrong indeed.

The fuzzy Christmas-style sweater was £995.
And the 'Generous Saving'?
£300 off- the sweater, on sale, with roughly 30% off, was £695.
SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE POUNDS.

Or how about this £46 equivalent?

Other than making me leave the shop immediately in fearful haste, this small event made me think about what we know today as 'designer clothes'.
No doubt, this jumper I saw at Ralph Lauren was not the only one of its kind- I returned home to find a very similar jumper for £46 at Debenhams; still an exorbitant price for a jumper in my opinion, but far less than the RL equivalent.
So what is it that we are paying for if we are to buy this £995 jumper?
Ralph Lauren refused to give exact figures of the cost to make it, but we do know it's handmade, by 'Pure Cashmere Yarn'- which, according to my father (who made these when he was young) would cost a maximum of £30 (considering today's £15 per 50g price of the material) plus labour costs.
Now, unless labour and other costs (eg. transport) for each jumper were over a couple of hundred pounds, it's fair to say the profit margins on every jumper sold would be huge for RL. It wouldn't take an economist to determine that.
Yet people still buy designer clothes. Someone must have bought the jumper; the product department at RL aren't misinformed enough to invest in a product no one would buy.

So why? Why would people buy the Ralph Lauren jumper rather than the Debenhams one?
In the interest of not writing a book of reasons, I tried narrowed this down to three; it was difficult, and I haven't included many, but I think I've done it well enough.

REASON 1- SHEEP MENTALITY
You'll know this if you lived during the craze of Superdry Windcheater jackets (I admit to being guilty myself in this case). This mentality was what enabled David Beckham, in a single magazine photoshoot, to help the Cheltenham fashion brand to grow from a single shop to what is now a global icon in pop fashion, making sales of almost £400m last year.
Essentially, once more people begin to wear designer clothes of a sort, people feel pressured (often unwittingly) to wear the same- to 'fit in', to 'look cool'. Social pressure, exacerbated by the celebrity lifestyle forced into our faces via the media, creates this sheep mentality, of obsessively following trends. Remember crocs? They were once considered cool.

REASON 2- QUALITY
It's a thought perhaps the biggest of cynics (cough cough, my uncle) cannot really deal with, but it is often the case. You'll expect a £165 Barbour fleece Jacket to be made of better materials than a £15 Primark equivalent- and thus the Alcantara-lined Barbour Jacket does cost more. Many people care about the quality- and more often than not designer, expensive brands offer better quality, usually through better, more expensive materials and/or better production procedures, that would make them more comfortable/last longer.
However I think it's safe to say there are exceptions- the aforementioned RL jumper an example of this.

REASON 3- SOCIAL STATUS
This is probably the main objective for the fortunate buyer of the RL jumper- it links well to reason 1 as well. The little logo of a horse, or a seagull, or whatever logo for some people is the main reason for their purchase- because it sends a message to people who see it: that the wearer is wealthy enough to buy expensive designer clothing. That they are fashionable, 'trendy'. It would be overly cynical to state this is the objective of all wearers of designer clothes, as it isn't, but it does explain some of the more ridiculous designer purchases- such as the RL jumper, or these nine-grand Louis Vuitton binoculars (pictured right) that perform the same function no better than a regular £20 pair.

One could argue that designer clothes are unnecessarily expensive- and in many cases they'd be right. For £4 north of £995 I could buy a MacBook Air- which would certainly be of better quality and perform everyday tasks quicker than a £30 laptop (if one exists), saving me time- while the £995 RL jumper would not hold such an advantage (in terms of practical value) over a £30 jumper.

While the quality must be taken into account also, it's worrying in my opinion that a growing focus on outward appearance is increasingly taking its toll on the largely cash-strapped wallets of the Western world. The impact of social pressure, this 'sheep mentality' cannot be underestimated.

So think, next time you're at the Armani, Superdry or dare I say even the Ralph Lauren store. Question your motives; and you potentially could save yourself (or your parents) a few bob.

Thanks for reading. This is probably the longest I've ever taken to discuss largely a single jumper.