Controversial Opinions Thread | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Controversial Opinions Thread

brigadiertiger

Tiger Champion
Dec 1, 2005
3,475
34
Tigertool said:
This is my most hated song. Absolutely terrible song. They've started playing it at some nightclubs now too, and it ruins my night.

But it did have one upside
post-37-0-56161600-1439864444.jpg


DirtyDogTiger said:
The chick in the video was not the singer.
How does the singer feel when when she’s replaced by a model?

It’s just like the weather girls v black box.

The singer was Margaret Urlich who sang she elected not to appear in the video as she was recording in London at the time.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
2,441
1,517
brigadiertiger said:
But it did have one upside
post-37-0-56161600-1439864444.jpg


The singer was Margaret Urlich who sang she elected not to appear in the video as she was recording in London at the time.
Is this a clip from horses? Most shittest song ever, not liked at the time and now only played because recent borns dont know when they are having the *smile* taken out of them.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Not so much an opinion as a pretty controversial question.

would a vegan perform oral sex on their partner and persist, right 'til the bitter end?
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,255
6,130
Aldinga Beach
easy said:
Not so much an opinion as a pretty controversial question.

would a vegan perform oral sex on their partner and persist, right 'til the bitter end?

They'd just close their eyes...if it looks like a carrot.....and acts like a carrot...it's a carrot
 

Midsy

I am the one who knocks.
Jan 18, 2014
3,383
1,343
51
London
easy said:
Not so much an opinion as a pretty controversial question.

would a vegan perform oral sex on their partner and persist, right 'til the bitter end?

No chance - Vegans don't eat meat.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,180
4,679
Melbourne
the AFL season should be reduced 18 rounds.

so why 18 and not 17? so every team has an equal number of home and away games. every team plays each other once and the 18th game is a second derby for the interstate teams, while the Victorian teams rotate a second game between them over a rolling 9 year cycle. And if you play a home game against a particular team one year, you will be away to them the next season (excluding the 18th game of course).

this leaves an extra 5 weeks spare:
- start the season in the first weekend of April (like it used to many years ago).
- 1 extra week for finals (move to a final 10 system, which is 2 times the McIntyre final 5 system, which greatly benefits the top 2 teams). some will say this will reward mediocrity, but teams 7-10 will have to win in 5 consecutive games, which will probably never happen.
- a 3 week break midseason to incorporate AFLW finals (the AFLW will eventually have to be extended into the AFL season once it expands and this is a way of giving them some clear air) and to allow players to freshen up before the run to the finals.
- no week off before the finals.
- no split rounds (hate em with a passion).

the idea behind this is quality over quantity. there will be less wear and tear on players, meaning they are fitter and playing better and sexier football. a shorter season means teams will remain in the hunt for finals for longer (especially with a final 10 system), meaning less rubbish lopsided games in the second half of the season that people don't wanna watch. This (in theory) will mean an increase in TV ratings, meaning there will be no drop TV rights money or player salaries.
 

TigerForce

Tiger Legend
Apr 26, 2004
70,725
21,647
57
Ian4 said:
the AFL season should be reduced 18 rounds.

so why 18 and not 17? so every team has an equal number of home and away games. every team plays each other once and the 18th game is a second derby for the interstate teams, while the Victorian teams rotate a second game between them over a rolling 9 year cycle. And if you play a home game against a particular team one year, you will be away to them the next season (excluding the 18th game of course).

this leaves an extra 5 weeks spare:
- start the season in the first weekend of April (like it used to many years ago).
- 1 extra week for finals (move to a final 10 system, which is 2 times the McIntyre final 5 system, which greatly benefits the top 2 teams). some will say this will reward mediocrity, but teams 7-10 will have to win in 5 consecutive games, which will probably never happen.
- a 3 week break midseason to incorporate AFLW finals (the AFLW will eventually have to be extended into the AFL season once it expands and this is a way of giving them some clear air) and to allow players to freshen up before the run to the finals.
- no week off before the finals.
- no split rounds (hate em with a passion).

the idea behind this is quality over quantity. there will be less wear and tear on players, meaning they are fitter and playing better and sexier football. a shorter season means teams will remain in the hunt for finals for longer (especially with a final 10 system), meaning less rubbish lopsided games in the second half of the season that people don't wanna watch. This (in theory) will mean an increase in TV ratings, meaning there will be no drop TV rights money or player salaries.

Agree, except the 3 week break and final 10. I reckon it should be final 6 using the Second McIntyre final six system.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
22,180
4,679
Melbourne
TigerForce said:
Agree, except the 3 week break and final 10. I reckon it should be final 6 using the Second McIntyre final six system.

the theory behind the final 10 system is to keep everyone's finals chances alive for as long as possible. This keeps everyone interested for longer. It also gives a better reward for finishing in the top 2, which most will agree isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be. I am also not against replacing the final 10 system with a the current final 8 system with 2 wildcard games... but again, it doesn't give the reward for the top 2 teams.

As for the McIntyre final 6 system, not way!!! it was the worst finals system the game has ever had. It just didn't work properly. If you were to bring in a final 6 system, the best one is the system that is used in the ALeague:

Week 1
Game 1: 3 v 6
Game 2: 4 v 5
(Team 1 and 2 have byes)

Week 2
Game 3: 1 v Lowest Ranked Week 1 Winner (Team 4, 5 or 6)
Game 4: 2 v Highest Ranked Week 1 Winner (Team 3, 4 or 5)

Week 3:
Game 5 - Grand Final: Highest Ranked Week 2 Winner v Lowest Ranked Week 2 Winner

Its a good system, but the major flaw is that its only a 3 week system of 5 games. 4 games less than the current system and the AFL would never consider something like this.
 

Midsy

I am the one who knocks.
Jan 18, 2014
3,383
1,343
51
London
If think this couple should have been more prudent in their borrowing. Why blame the bank? They’re in it to make money.

One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
Midsy said:
If think this couple should have been more prudent in their borrowing. Why blame the bank? They’re in it to make money.

One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6
Call me boring, but I've always taken the view that one should pay off their primary residence first, before thinking about buying others. The power of compounding is indeed a remarkable tool to create personal wealth. But people seem to be totally unaware of how compounding also works equally (or more) against you on the other side of the ledger and can erode any gains you're making. Like I said in another thread. It's surprising how large a part of the Aussie adult population is barely financially literate and don't understand the basics.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
29,891
12,161
Midsy said:
If think this couple should have been more prudent in their borrowing. Why blame the bank? They’re in it to make money.

One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6
Sound like the bank should have done more checking but again, something doesn’t add up here.

“The bank grossly underestimated our expenditure “. Well, the applicant provides expenditures. Surely the applicant didn’t lie about expenditure.....

The applicant didn’t realise the interest only period would end.....Seriously? On 5 occasions of borrowing money they never understood how long their interest only period was? Incredible.

They got $1.8m loaned over 5 properties on 1 salary? Unless that one salary was h[b]uge[/b] I don’t understand how this can happen.

If I read between the lines here the mortgagees got greedy and wanted a portfolio of properties and when the interest only periods ended their repayments shot up and they couldn’t afford the repayments.

What responsibilities are this couple taking for their own actions? None it seems. Seems it’s better to cry about the big bad banks and shift the blame on to them. The age of entitlement continues.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Theres nothing really controversial,

About dumb people watching the block, deciding that real estate is free money, mortgaging and leveraging and over extending, then going broke and spending sundays cleaning spew out of the back seat of their ubered camry.
 

MD Jazz

Don't understand football? Talk to the hand.
Feb 3, 2017
13,329
13,707
tigertim said:
If I read between the lines here the mortgagees got greedy and wanted a portfolio of properties and when the interest only periods ended their repayments shot up and they couldn’t afford the repayments.

What responsibilities are this couple taking for their own actions? None it seems. Seems it’s better to cry about the big bad banks and shift the blame on to them. The age of entitlement continues.

Totally agree tt. And this is not isolated.

Negative gearing is great when asset prices rise every year, every investor suddenly thinks they're Warren Smorgasboard.
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
8,005
2,154
Westpac did the calculations on what base line living expenses should be. This couple also lived beyond their means and were not prepared to pull their head in. As a result the banks now need to review ones living costs and not take a clients written living costs down to make sure they can afford their lifestyle. Now people have very high incomes but are good spenders are getting shocks that they can’t get a home loan and again blame the bank and the RC.
 

MD Jazz

Don't understand football? Talk to the hand.
Feb 3, 2017
13,329
13,707
Midsy said:
If think this couple should have been more prudent in their borrowing. Why blame the bank? They’re in it to make money.

One salary, 5 properties. Was always going to end in tears.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/it-is-worse-than-being-back-to-square-one-westpac-hit-with-class-action-over-irresponsible-lending/news-story/6b3d4058db96c442c05ae0e2112f32c6

Back to living pay cheque to pay cheque and tax return to tax return. Says it all really.

Funny thing is without the negative gearing they will likely have to lodge dodgy expense claims to get a tax refund. Can just see her asking her tax agent where her $8K refund is and blaming him for claiming everything correctly.

Although I wonder how they could end up worse off given the property price increases over the last decade. Over what period were the 5 properties obtained, surely not in the last year or so? Even if they paid interest only and allowing for transaction costs they should have had some substantial gains.

What will be even funnier is when they lodge their tax returns and have capital gains tax to pay! I can just imagine the dumb questions she will have.
 

year of the tiger

Tiger Legend
Mar 26, 2008
9,445
6,510
Tasmania
tigertim said:
Sound like the bank should have done more checking but again, something doesn’t add up here.

“The bank grossly underestimated our expenditure “. Well, the applicant provides expenditures. Surely the applicant didn’t lie about expenditure.....

The applicant didn’t realise the interest only period would end.....Seriously? On 5 occasions of borrowing money they never understood how long their interest only period was? Incredible.

They got $1.8m loaned over 5 properties on 1 salary? Unless that one salary was h[b]uge[/b] I don’t understand how this can happen.

If I read between the lines here the mortgagees got greedy and wanted a portfolio of properties and when the interest only periods ended their repayments shot up and they couldn’t afford the repayments.

What responsibilities are this couple taking for their own actions? None it seems. Seems it’s better to cry about the big bad banks and shift the blame on to them. The age of entitlement continues.

Year beggars belief.

You would assume 1 salary and 4 rentals perhaps if they were half smart - still lot needed to cover that debt.

Agree with MD - over the last 5 years there should be 3 years of property appreciation to bank on, again if they were half smart, sell the properties and you would hope you have made a handy little profit - unless they were just plain naive and greedy and wanted to keep all the properties.

Not many people in Aus percent wise would own 5 properties I would have thought - reckon the banks will win this one.
 

MD Jazz

Don't understand football? Talk to the hand.
Feb 3, 2017
13,329
13,707
Actually just read the full article, they purchased 3 properties in 2013/2014. As long as they purchased in a capital city they should have enjoyed some growth.

And the actual cash cost of holding the 3 investment properties (if houses in capital cities) shoulodn't be too much after taking into account negative gearing. I wonder if they were in both names or just the wage earner?

I bet they've invested in managed holiday apartments in Hervey Bay or some such *smile*.
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
9,185
3,594
Essex Heights
year of the tiger said:
Year beggars belief.

You would assume 1 salary and 4 rentals perhaps if they were half smart - still lot needed to cover that debt.

Agree with MD - over the last 5 years there should be 3 years of property appreciation to bank on, again if they were half smart, sell the properties and you would hope you have made a handy little profit - unless they were just plain naive and greedy and wanted to keep all the properties.

Not many people in Aus percent wise would own 5 properties I would have thought - reckon the banks will win this one.

I always wondered why you hear someone say at a party I have 4 investment properties and everyone goes good on ya mate, having a go, but if you say I own 1000 CSL shares people we think stuck up wanker. No one every asks having a go mate how much equity he has. And often he may not know what you mean.
 

Tigerfan

Roar Power
Apr 28, 2004
26,631
2,039
Gold Coast (SE - QLD).
poppa x said:
x 2

Had to laugh when Moonee Valley on Cox Plate Day pulled out his microphone plug as he was literally scaring the horses.

You know who’s a seriously scary (if not hilarious) singer : yoko ono.
She’s got this screechy wail thing she does.