Jump to content

Guts

Gold Members
  • Posts

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Guts

  1. 14 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

    No worries. FWIW, I'm swaying towards a 2 year mortgage just now, mostly because the difference in rates if I can get it down to below 85% ltv will make a decent sized difference, even if the rates go up 1% over the next two years. If I can, right now I'd be quoted around a 2% (plus the 1% on top worst case scenairo) fixed on a 5 year after that.

    From what I've read, I'd say if you're anything below 85% ltv, a 5 year is probably the best bet, but any higher I would keep doing 2 year fixed and pay as much off early as you can to get to that target, which is what I think I'll end up doing.

    That's a brilliant idea. We have had a fair bit extra each month for a long time which we had used in doing up the property. The house is also worth a hell of a lot more as we picked it up for a song on the account of its state. Now there are childcare bills (£900 per month) we did not have prior to getting the mortgage. We no longer have enough spare to put your plan into practice but that would have been perfect. Thanks again for the advice and I hope you get yours sorted.

  2. On 2/22/2018 at 09:29, the jambo-rocker said:

    Seems as good a thread as any for this.

    I've got my eyes on my first mortgage coming up shortly, on a 10% deposit. I'm oohing and ahhing over whether to take a 2 year fixed (price ranging looking at 1.8-2%) or just go for a full five year fixed (roughly looking at 2.5% for £50 a month more).

    Fag packet calcuatations have me roughly pay the same eventaully is the base rate were to rise a minimum of 1% over the next two years. Judging from the last decade and talk of interest rates forecast for May, I can't see the interest rates going anywhere but up and the five year looks a no brainer for the long term. Am I missing something here?

    Where was it you were quoted the 2.5% over the 5 year fixed deal. I have been watching for a reply to your question as I am a bit lost with all this. I am in the middle of negotiating a new deal and was quoted 2.98% over 5 year fixed deal. I think with the impending May time (estimated) increase of the Bank of England rate the 5 year fixed is the way to go. 

  3. 4 minutes ago, nsr said:

    Two things they could try:
    1. Stop signing players for the specific purpose of weakening rival teams. E.g. Hayes.
    2. Actively discourage the political and religious side of their support. Invite the Queen to be a guest of honour.

    1. Every team with the chance does that all over the world. I hate when Celtic do it and especially when it ruins players (like Riordan, Flood etc) but thats just the way it goes.

    2. They will only do that for show when they absolutely need to. hehe the Queen wouldn't want to come visit.

  4. 5 minutes ago, nsr said:

    The chance to use bigotry and sectarianism to attract 40% of football supporters from all over the country?

    Yes, there is no denying that religion (which brings with it bigotry and sectarianism) is part of the reason that Celtic have more supporters and therefore more money. There will be catholics from areas all over Scotland who will support Celtic instead of their local teams because the clubs catholic roots. The Irish roots thing also means there is a bigger pool of supporters that Celtic benefit from. 

     

    8 minutes ago, nsr said:

    Sorry but this just comes across as a desperate attempt to cling on to Celtic's fantasy of being the plucky downtrodden wee upstarts, rather than the unopposed behemoth that tramples over everyone else. Since Rangers died it's become more and more ridiculous a fantasy to hold on to, but still they try.

    Yes, they are a ridiculous force here in Scotland but what can they do? Refuse the champs league money?

  5. 2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

    Theres absolutely no need for UEFA to give teams over £10m simply for qualifying for the groups. It cements the already dominant diddy teams, in diddy leagues, their status as number one, while never being enough to mean they challenge the big teams, to who £10m is absolutely nothing.

    It's purely and simply there to keep the status quo.

    Im confused as to how you think St Johnstone, for example, can qualify for the Champions League, when Celtic spend more on one players wage in a week than our entire squad gets

     

    How can Celtic be blamed for the reward for getting into the champions league? That isn't the same thing as financial doping which is what Heartsofficialmoaner said.

    The system is shite, and you are right (maybe the hearts guy meant that too) that UEFA have it in place to keep the status quo but how can Celtic be blamed for that?.

    It would be nearly impossible, but you play in the same country and have had the same chances that Celtic have.

     

  6. 13 hours ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

    It's always good to see the big guy gets a bit of what he hands out but it's more like financial doping than financial fair play when UEFA hand over £30 million a season to Celtic so they can pish over Scottish football.  

    See this opinion quite a lot on here and not sure if it is fully serious or the people that say it are just too stupid but I suspect it is the latter. Rodgers or anyone else at Celtic can make that argument because Celtic spend what they earn, in a country your club has the same chances to earn in. Yes Celtic pish all over Scottish football and we will continue to pish all over you.  That is not Celtic's fault, they have more fans and make more money, that allows them to win the league and get access to the Champions League.  The irony is that Celtic are trying to push an investigation into a corrupt system who colluded with Rangers in order to allow them to actually financially dope. The other clubs have let themselves and their fans down, especially Anne Budge at your joke of a club. 

×
×
  • Create New...