All entries for Thursday 11 January 2007

January 11, 2007

Posh is wearing the trousers then

Victoria Beckham. In trousers (Prada presumably). The news that David Beckham is to move to the (ahem…) prestigious LA Galaxy team tells us who is the dominant partner in his marriage.

Presumably the Madrid shopping scene was a little too… Spanish? for Victoria and she’s demanded a transfer. Seriously, you’d think she was the one playing football.

The Daily Telegraph sports writer, Chris Davies said of the move: “The LA lifestyle would suit Posh but (for a player) it’s an elephant’s graveyard. If you go there you might as well sign off and claim your pension.”

Sure, David will get a heap of money. Although not much more than if he’d stayed where he was. And ignore “the deal’s reportedly worth £128m” that you’ll see in the press. After tax it’ll be worth little more than half that.

I can see why David wouldn’t want to play in England again. [bias] Nothing can top Manchester United. [/bias] But I find it hard to believe there weren’t more challenges for him on the continent.

In his own mind, I suspect David’s logic is that if anyone can make football popular in America, it’s him. He might have a point. If he’d done it four years ago. Instead, he’s more likely to make himself appear wet as he has the occasional injury in front of the home team who demand a bit more manliness from their sports stars than we do over here.

What Beckham should have done was branched out a bit further. Imagine how much money he’d make from

David Beckham’s Bare-Knuckle Boxing


David Beckham’s Extreme Tasering Championships

I know I’d pay to watch. We’ve seen him look like a bit of a wimp for over ten years now, and it’s high time he invented himself. Instead he’s done what Victoria’s told him so she can further her own career. In shopping.

Edit: Just found some interesting information in the very lengthy press release. 19 Entertainment is Beckham’s agent, who are better known for bringing us Pop Idol, S Club 7, oh, and the Spice Girls.

“This historic partnership [that’s what they’re calling Beckham’s transfer] with 19 Entertainment and CAA Sports will also create tremendous and exciting new opportunities for us to collectively develop additional worldwide initiatives,” Leiweke continued. “The synergies created with 19 Entertainment, the worldwide leaders in branding and imaging along with CAA Sports, the premier sports representation agency will result in numerous new and profitable ventures.”

So there’s more to this than meets the eye then…

How can you achieve the American Dream when you're earning this little?

The U.S. House of Representatives voted for an increase in the minimum wage yesterday, taking it up to $7.25 in 2010.

This is equivalent to £3.75 an hour.

It still has to pass through the U.S. Senate, where it’s likely to have tax breaks for small businesses attached to it. Because you can’t just do a minimum wage in America, you have to soften the blow too. Even though it’s worked pretty well over here without.

The Democrats will, rightly, call this progress. Without them it wouldn’t have gone up at all. But is £3.75 an hour really much progress? Our minimum wage is £5.35 an hour, and by 2010 will probably be nearer £6. Even the Confederation of British Industry are reasonably supportive of it.

Republican opponents (all Democrats and 80 Republicans voted for it) say it’s an “intrusion in the marketplace”. Surely it’s better to abandon principle for a while rather than see people live in poverty? As it is, it’s still not enough for anyone to live on, even if things are a bit cheaper over there.

To put this in context, the estimated ‘living wage’ (or amount needed to live on) in America is $8.20 per hour, but up to $18 an hour in many cities. In the UK it’s thought to be about £5.05 or £7.05 in London, so for some people, their minimum wage is more than they need to live on, but for others it isn’t.

Social justice seems to drop off a cliff somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Who said the world wasn’t flat?

Apple iPhone won't even get out of the starting blocks

Whoops. The iPhone. Not by Apple.

Apple said yesterday it was talking to Cisco Systems about the fact they already have a product (right) called the iPhone. They were apparently near to signing an agreement about the trademark which would make it alright.

Not any more…!

From the Cisco press release:

“They should not be using our trademark without our permission. Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand.”

All together now…

“Egg on your face, egg on your face…”

Steve Jobs. You’re a very silly boy.

Twitter Go to 'Twitter / chrisdoidge'

Tetbury Online

Most recent comments

  • To quote from PM Cameron's speech at Munich Security Conference on the failure of State Multicultura… by on this entry
  • Not sure whether their installation can do that (though I assume it will), but I personally have a D… by Pierre on this entry
  • Yup. The figure at the end I guess isn't so much a sign of falling standards, as failing policy. by on this entry
  • Didn't the compulsory GCSE in a language get ditched a few years back? by on this entry
  • Yeah, that was a Brown–like kiss of death. by on this entry

Search this blog

Blog archive



January 2007

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  | Feb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31            
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder