Today was the day that Tottenham Hotspurs qualified for Champions League. The Spurs needed to win along with a loss or tie for Arsenal. Even though Gareth Bale buried a game winning goal to give them a chance to qualify for champions league, Arsenal defeated their opponent disqualifying Tottenham from Champions League. Gareth Bale, a Welsh professional soccer player, plays in the Barclays Premier League on the Tottenham Hotspurs. In the season 2012-2013, the demand for Bale significantly increased due to his extraordinary performances. He appeared in thirty three EPL matches scoring twenty one goals and receiving four assists. Bale placed third in goals scored that season and received the Play of the Season award. The success Tottenham had in 2012-2013 only happened due to Bale’s excellent showings. Since Bale scored many game equalizing and game winning goals, the clutch factor increased the incentives for other clubs to buy him. Rumors were created saying Bale wanted out of Tottenham if they did not qualify for Champions League, causing teams around the world to be more interested in him. Since Tottenham was disqualified from Champions League next year and incentive for Bale increased, teams around the world, such as Real Madrid, are more than willing to pay substantial amounts of money for him. The question is: should Tottenham reject all offers or accept money and potentially star players for Gareth Bale.
This is a simple trade-off. There will be a cost and a benefit if Tottenham decides to reject all of the offers and keep Bale. The benefit of keeping Bale at Tottenham is that they keep their best player on their team. They are almost guaranteed success if Bale stays on Tottenham. The costs of rejecting all of the offers to keep Bale is the loss of a great amount of money and potentially other stars to fill in holes in Tottenham’s squad. Andre Villas-Boas, the manager for Tottenham, said, “his club wouldn’t sell Bale even if Real Madrid were to make a bid of £60 million” (BR). If Tottenham will decline any offer £60 million or less, they are losing a great possibility to increase the club’s wealth and to purchase other star players to improve the overall squad. The costs and benefits of selling Bale for money and players is the opposite. The benefit of accepting an offer for Bale is a substantial amount of money to increase Tottenham’s wealth and the possibility to purchase other star players. The cost of accepting an offer for Bale is the loss of Tottenham’s best and most inspirational player.
If the decision was up to me whether to keep or sell Gareth Bale, I would choose to keep Bale at Tottenham. Even though I could potentially gain a great amount of money and good soccer players, the benefit of keeping Bale on the team is more desirable to me. Bale is the heart and soul of Tottenham creating a large amount of chemistry throughout the squad. Chemistry plays a huge role in a club’s success, therefore I would spend my effort searching for a strategy that complements Bale’s play style. Gareth Bale will endure a long, promising future, therefore Tottenham would be making a bad mistake letting Bale leave and win trophies for another football club.
The debate over gun control was sparked by the recent school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. The republicans mainly want to keep the Gun Control rules unaltered, yet the democrats beg to differ. They believe there must be some gun control bills passed to secure the safety of americans everywhere. The NRA, National Rifle Association, is the main association pushing for no alteration in the gun control laws. The NRA fighting against changes in the gun control laws is a prime example of pathways of action. The NRA is an example of the lobbying pathway because they are in Washington attempting to increase the number of supporters to help their beliefs. There are four main bills trying to be approved at the moment. The bills “… include a universal background checks bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a school safety bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a new gun trafficking statute sponsored by Leahy, and an assault weapons ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).” (Huffington). In my opinion, the sides must compromise. The republicans will not get everything they desire, which is leaving the gun control laws unaltered. Yet the democrats will not receive everything they desire. I believe the bill by Senator Dianne Feinstein that attempts to ban all sales of assault weapons will not pass due to the extreme request. As I said the parties must meet in the middle. I believe all guns should be allowed to be sold, but only to people with the license for a gun of that type. Also to ensure the safety of the Americans, gun stores need to have extensive background checks. I believe anyone with a psychological disorder needs a psychiatrist to sign off on the permission to sell him a gun. The background checks also need to consist of past criminal history. The background checks is to ensure that dangerous guns are not distributed to people with bad intentions or people that may not have full control over their actions. People would argue that requiring extra rules for people with psychological disorders is unfair and makes everyone not equal, yet the point of gun control laws is to limit the distribution of guns to dangerous beings. So the bill to ban all sales of assault weapons would be declined, but the bill to have universal background checks would be a good idea to approve. There is controversy on whether the sale of the firearm should be kept or not. Today, “the record of the check is destroyed, but the record of the sale is kept, usually by the retailer.” (Huffington). The democrats believe all records of gun sales be kept. They claim if the record of the sales is not kept than the extensive background check is pointless. The republican argue that keeping records of sales taken place via the internet should not be recorded. Since meeting in the middle is my plan, I’d keep the same law already established with a bigger focus on the record of the sales. Every gun sale in a gun retail store or online should be documented just in the extreme situation that it could help find a murderer or stop a murderer from buying a weapon because it would be documented. Overall, I would allow the continuation of all weapons to be sold, yet with an extensive background check. First, the customer must have the appropriate license to carry such a gun. Second, criminal history will be searched to see if the customer is trustworthy with a specific weapon. Third, customers with a psychological illness need a psychologist to sign off on a permission slip to ensure the gun retail store he is healthy enough to obtain a gun. I would not make any changes to the current law about recording gun sales besides a bigger emphasis on it. Gun control is to protect the safety of children and adults, not to take away the rights of people interested in weapons. These requirements would decrease the amount of malicious people with dangerous weapons obtaining harmful ambitions.