Bradford College wins annual award for use of digital technology
The college's Learning, Development, and Innovation team was honoured with the accolade at the Edufuturists Awards 2025 - whose ceremony was held in Manchester - for its use of digital technology to enhance student learning.
The team's efforts include hosting dedicated staff development days for digital upskilling.
Bradford College also has an immersive classroom and a ClassView system for "connecting learners across the country."
According to a spokesperson for the college, "the team has designed bespoke VR content to support student-led learning, raising engagement and access for SEND and ESOL learners."
Thirty-thousand public nomination votes were cast this year for the Edufuturists Awards, with these, as well as a judging panel, determining the winners in the various categories.
Monika Worthington, learning innovation lead and Microsoft certified educator at Bradford College, said: "We are proud to lead the way in pioneering educational practices and technologies that prepare students for the challenges of tomorrow.
"Our approach centres around accessibility, inclusion, and personalisation.
"Technology has enabled us to remove learning barriers, adapt teaching to suit individual needs, and offer students engaging, immersive experiences."
Bradford College is recognised as a Microsoft Showcase School for the 2024/2025 academic year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia Becomes First Company Ever to Reach $4 Trillion Market Cap. Could the Growth Stock Have Even More Room to Run?
Nvidia surpassed $4 trillion in market cap on Wednesday, becoming the first company ever to do so. The investment thesis is backed by measurable results. Nvidia's success largely depends on its top customers converting AI spending into earnings growth. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › On the morning of July 9, Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) became the first company to surpass $4 trillion in market cap -- an achievement still out of reach for tech giants Microsoft and Apple. The accomplishment is even more impressive considering it has been just two years since Nvidia passed $1 trillion in market cap. Apple and Amazon reached $1 trillion in 2018 and Microsoft followed suit in 2019. Here's why Nvidia has emerged as the most valuable company in the world, why real results support the narrative, and why the growth stock could have more room to run for patient investors. The simplest reason as to why Nvidia is up nearly 15-fold in just five years is that the company's business model has transformed from being largely dependent on end markets like gaming and professional visualization (digital content and computer-aided design) to selling graphics processing units (GPUs) for high-performance computing and cloud infrastructure. Artificial intelligence (AI) workloads are demanding more from data centers. Central processing units (CPUs) are ideally suited for processing sequential tasks, like basic calculations and internet browsing. GPUs are better at parallel processing, which involves handling massive amounts of information from large datasets and achieving higher throughput. GPUs have become the backbone of training AI models, so cloud computing hyperscalers are investing substantial capital expenditures in purchasing GPUs. In addition to the hardware, Nvidia develops software and associated infrastructure, providing an AI ecosystem for data centers. Nvidia's Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA) software platform, high-speed interconnects and switching chips, storage solutions, and cooling systems are examples of products and services that complement its GPUs. All together, these solutions combine to form what Nvidia calls AI factories, which are specialized data centers purpose-built for AI rather than traditional computing tasks. In a figurative sense, Nvidia is a steelmaker at the dawn of the age of skyscrapers. Data center construction evolved from wood, stone, and bricks to concrete and steel. And Nvidia is the top supplier in town, designing extremely complex GPUs and AI systems. Since Nvidia has little competition and its products are in high demand, it can afford to charge a premium price that its hyperscale customers, with deep pockets, are more than willing to pay, as they have the cash to spend. Top Nvidia customers, like Microsoft Cloud, Amazon Web Services, Alphabet's Google Cloud, and Meta Platforms, have impeccable balance sheets and high margins. So they can afford to pay top dollar for Nvidia's AI solutions. Nvidia's impeccable results come from rising AI demand and the company's ability to convert such a massive amount of its revenue into earnings. In fact, Nvidia converts more than $0.50 of every dollar in revenue into net profit. Nvidia's stock price has surged because its margins have remained high while it has grown revenue exponentially. Nvidia not only has the largest market cap of any company in the world, but it also generates the fourth-most net income -- behind only Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft. So while the stock isn't as inexpensive as some of its peers, Nvidia isn't purely valued on future results. The company is already making a ton of money. Its growth could slow, but it will still likely grow its net income faster than Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft, becoming the most profitable company in the world in the next few years. Nvidia's results speak for themselves, but the future is largely dependent on sustained AI spending from key Nvidia customers. Nvidia's top customers need to prove to their investors that spending on AI is leading to measurable results. Meaningful earnings growth must follow high capital expenditures, or there may be pressure to pull back on spending. In other words, Nvidia is selling the picks and shovels, but its customers must continue striking gold or they will no longer need its tools. Investors should only approach the stock if they have a high risk tolerance, a long-term investment horizon, and are willing to endure potential fluctuations in the company's results. It wouldn't be surprising to see an eventual cooldown in AI spending once hyperscalers complete their foundational buildouts. It remains to be seen how Nvidia will perform once the market matures and if competition eventually catches up. But for now, the company is well positioned to maintain its lead over the competition because it can pour cash generated from the business into research and development for new technologies. Given its inherent advantages, it would take nothing short of a breakthrough for a competitor to take a meaningful slice out of Nvidia's AI market share pie. With a 37.9 forward price-to-earnings ratio, at the time of this writing, Nvidia isn't the dirt cheap no-brainer buy it once was, but it is still a fair value for investors who believe in at least modest AI growth over time. Nvidia is a good example of a company that looks overvalued if you just glance at the stock's price action, but is actually more reasonably valued once you account for the strength of the underlying business and the clear runway for future earnings growth. Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,432!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,005,854!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,049% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 7, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Daniel Foelber has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Nvidia Becomes First Company Ever to Reach $4 Trillion Market Cap. Could the Growth Stock Have Even More Room to Run? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
‘Lost' transfer fees – Revealing the clubs who have missed out most on future sales
Anthony Elanga's move up north is laden with consequence. For Newcastle United, his signing marks the first real transfer success of an otherwise frustrating summer. Elanga joins as the club's third most expensive signing, slipping in behind team-mates Alexander Isak and Sandro Tonali. At Nottingham Forest, the club he is leaving behind, the blow of losing a winger who contributed 17 goals or assists in the equivalent of 28 Premier League games last season has been in some way assuaged by the £52million they are being paid for him — a club-record sale (though the potential £60m departure of Morgan Gibbs-White to Tottenham Hotspur may swiftly eclipse that). Advertisement Forest will not bank all of the Elanga fee, and the move has shone even more light on the transfer dealings of Manchester United. The Swedish forward left Old Trafford two years ago, joining Forest for £15million; now, after two successful years in Nottingham, he moves on again for more than triple the fee United managed to get for him. They do have the upside of a 15 per cent sell-on clause, projected to generate a little over £5m, but that still makes their gross take on Elanga two-and-a-half times lower than what Newcastle have just spent on him. Manchester United's transfer business has drawn much attention recently, not least because, at last check at the end of March, they owed more than £300million in net fees to other clubs. That's generally been viewed as a by-product of largesse, and United have spent over £200m on new players in each of the past three seasons. But it's also, as the Elanga deal reflects, indicative of their inability to sell well. In the 10 seasons to the end of 2023-24, the most recent for which we have reliable data, United's profit on player sales totalled £174.2million. That was good enough only to be the 18th highest mark in England; they lag behind all of their domestic rivals when it comes to player sales, and aren't even in the same ballpark as Chelsea (£842.8m) and Manchester City (£583.7m) over the same period. It's easy to see which clubs have banked the most from player sales, but a rather different question concerns how much they might have missed out on. In the case of Elanga, United sold him for £15m, then saw him move from his next club two seasons down the line for £52m, a £37m difference (though, of course, the sell-on clause reduces that). Using data from Transfermarkt, a website which tracks football transfers across the world, The Athletic set about determining which clubs have 'lost' the most in future transfer fees. Advertisement It's an undertaking with several considerations. Do we just look at a player's next transfer? Or include every subsequent move he is involved in? Do we include those deals where the next fee is lower than the previous one? What about sell-on clauses? For ease, and to avoid confusion, we've kept our workings to just one degree of separation. In other words, if Newcastle go on to sell Elanga for £100million, Forest would be deemed, under our model, to have lost out on £48m in fees. United, two deals back, wouldn't be deemed to have missed out on anything extra. Perfect? Perhaps not, but there's also the point that players and their abilities can only be linked to past clubs for so long. We've also excluded those deals where the fee from the next transfer is lower than the previous one. So, for example, if Elanga was to be sold by Newcastle for less than £52million, meaning Forest made more on him than his next club did, it wouldn't reduce our overall figure for the City Ground side's lost future fees. The idea here is not to make a judgment on a club's overall transfer dealings, but to identify which ones have, for whatever reason, lost out on substantial future fees. As we'll see, appearing on our list does not identify you as poor players of the market. In terms of sell-on fees, because of the general unreliability around their reporting (and the fact that including them in a calculation spanning 10 years of worldwide transfers might be enough to collapse our IT infrastructure), we've excluded any from calculations but, as you'll see, have made clear their importance. Just because a club has missed out on a future bumper fee doesn't mean they've missed out entirely. With United regarded as poor sellers, the natural inclination is to assume they've given up stacks in future fees, too. Utilising the methodology above, we found their 'lost fees' since the start of the 2015-16 season totalled some £272.5million — the second largest figure in England over the past decade. That includes the Elanga deal and will rise further once Alvaro Carreras' move from Benfica to Real Madrid is completed, though United will enjoy the benefits of a 20 per cent sell-on clause in that one. Even that finding throws up extra nuance — £89million of United's figure stems from Paul Pogba, who they bought back from Juventus in 2016, having lost him to the Italian club for almost nothing as a free agent four years earlier. Including a fee paid by United as part of the amounts they've lost out on seems a bit odd at first glance, but the logic holds; had they kept Pogba and used him as Juventus did in the ensuing seasons, they'd not have had to pay to get him back, and may well have been able to generate the size of fee it cost them to bring him back to Manchester. Advertisement Stripping the Pogba deal out would still leave United high on our list, though perhaps surprising is the identity of the two clubs who surround them when it comes to lost fees. Despite being the most profitable player-traders in England, City and Chelsea sit at the top of this table, too. If those statements seem incongruous, it is worth considering how those clubs operate. In City's case, their academy has long been regarded as one of world football's best. That tends to mean they have some of the world's best young footballers on their books. Yet while the footballing calendar expands exponentially, there's no sign yet that the number of players a team can have on the pitch in a game will change. Naturally, this means a majority of the youngsters in a club's academy won't ever make it into their first team. Instead, they move on, hoping to kick-start their careers elsewhere. Without a CV boasting top-level experience under their arm, the selling club are unable to generate huge immediate sums (although City do sell their academy kids better than most). The player then moves to pastures new, achieves the potential that was seen in them from a young age, then moves again, that time for a much heftier fee. A look at the biggest contributors to City's figure bears as much out. Take the most recent example, Jamie Gittens, who has just moved from Borussia Dortmund to Chelsea for an initial £48.5million. Gittens was coaxed from the blue side of Manchester to Germany for pretty much nothing, such was his age at the time, before being sold for a big sum this month. In one sense, that can be seen as City having missed out on good money, but it's unrealistic to apply that logic with a broad brush. Gittens left them in summer 2020, since when they have won four out of the five Premier League titles, a Champions League, an FA Cup, a League Cup, a UEFA Super Cup and a FIFA Club World Cup (albeit in its truncated former guise as an annual event). Advertisement Had he stayed, Gittens may well have contributed to all of those, but it's a tough argument to make that City have lost out by letting him go when they did. Had he stayed at the Etihad Stadium and not played for Pep Guardiola, his value wouldn't have increased in the manner it has during those five seasons in Germany. Similar is true of others on the list, transfers where sell-on clauses did exist (Gittens' youth meant none could be included when he left). Jadon Sancho represents the most money lost in future fees but that is ignorant of the chunky sum City received via a sell-on clause when neighbours United bought him, again from Dortmund, for £73million in 2021. Including all sell-on fees they've received from these deals would bring City's number down a notch, and they're proof that seeing players move on for bigger fees in the future might not be indicative of a club playing the transfer market poorly. If anything, City are the opposite. The reason they top our table is another one entirely: they are simply too well-stocked with talent. Unable to play everyone in a first team limited both by the constraints of football's rules and the fact you can only pick 11 players at any one time, they necessarily have to let some talent go. As detailed in our own BookKeeper series earlier this year, City have made huge amounts from youngsters who never kicked a Premier League ball for them. They're just never going to be able to generate the maximum value from those players, given their lack of experience; in this instance, City's hefty lost future fees can be seen as vindication of their scouting setup. It is harder to say the same of Chelsea. They've had success of their own over the past decade but it's difficult not to think they'd have enjoyed even more of it had they held onto some of the players they sold — ones who subsequently moved for larger fees. Kevin De Bruyne was sold to Germany's Wolfsburg in 2014 for £36million less than City brought him back to England for a year later. He, of course, went on to become one of the greatest players in Premier League history. Similarly, Mohamed Salah, sold to Roma by Chelsea for around £12m in 2016, returned to England with Liverpool for £25m more than that after a year and, again, evolved into one of the stars of the world game. Advertisement Across that pair, plus Romelu Lukaku and Tino Livramento, Chelsea sold four players for £64million whose next moves cumulatively brought in £199m. Lukaku is a bit of a strange one — as with Pogba, he'd later return to the club who sold him, and for a significantly higher fee — and Livramento could fall into the same category as the youngsters City moved on, but there's little arguing Chelsea wouldn't have been better with De Bruyne and Salah in their team, or at least the versions of them that came to pass at the Etihad and Anfield. There is, of course, no guarantee they would have become those players if they had stayed in west London. Notably, each of the top six spots in our table of English clubs is occupied by the Premier League's historic 'Big Six'. That speaks to the stranglehold those teams have on young talent, as well, perhaps, as their capacity to make errors in the transfer market. No club want to let someone go for less than their value, but if they're already well-stocked in a position and are looking to move someone on, it's harder to hold out for a meaty fee. Outside of those six, some interesting names appear. Birmingham City's £100million-plus in lost fees comes down to one family: Jude and later Jobe Bellingham generated only around £25m in guaranteed fees for their boyhood club, while their next moves garnered nearly £100m more. Of course, again, sell-on clauses helped soften the blow for Birmingham and their accountants. Birmingham, and others on the list, are a good example of how leverage impacts a club's ability to eke out maximum value from a sale. For the Bellinghams, for Kyle Walker at Sheffield United and for Harry Maguire at Hull City (and also at Sheffield United, actually), a combination of inexperience at the top level and the selling club's lower standing in the English pyramid meant they could never command the fees they'd later go for. Sheffield United would very much like to have banked the £45million-plus Walker eventually went from Tottenham to City for, but demanding that when he was 19 and had only two appearances in the second-tier Championship to his name would have been a tad fanciful. Instead, they made do with £5m and Walker immediately returning from Spurs on a season-long loan; not perfect, but a decent enough deal in the context of English football's hierarchy. Broadening our horizons beyond England, we find another intriguing list, and another club topping the £300m mark. Advertisement Rennes of France's Ligue 1 have seen their former players move on for £310million more than they've sold them over the past 10 years, though that figure is skewed a tad by Ousmane Dembele. His move from Dortmund to Barcelona generated nearly £100m more than Rennes had sold him to the Germans for, though once again there was a sell-on clause they benefited from. Like Rennes and Dembele, there were several instances when big one-off deals might have left their past clubs rueful. Inter, second on our non-English list, sold Philippe Coutinho to Liverpool in 2013 for £108million less than the amount the latter moved him on to Barcelona for five years down the road. The Italian club later offset some of that by selling Andre Onana to Manchester United in 2023 for £45m more than he'd cost them 12 months earlier. Ajax of the Netherlands were the side hit hardest in that instance. Two Brazilian clubs appear on our list. Much like Championship sides in England, clubs there aren't equipped with too much in the way of leverage. At Santos and Sao Paulo, the huge future moves of Neymar and Antony probably aren't viewed as money that got away; neither of those sides were ever going to be able to command those fees. Antony, of course, later generated big money for Ajax, so in the course of just two paragraphs and three transfers we've managed to pretty vividly sketch out world football's pecking order. If anything, looking at what clubs have lost out on in future fees isn't indicative of poor business at all. That will undoubtedly be the case in some respects, but City, the loss-leader in our findings (something which may remain true even if we factor in those sell-on clauses), are about as far from poor transfer dealers as it's possible to get. Instead, what this all shows more glaringly is the in-built hierarchy of modern football. Big, rich clubs amass talent, then choose from the best. The rest are allowed to leave, for decent fees, but often ones that pale in comparison to their true worth, which gets realised elsewhere. Meanwhile, outside the elite, clubs further down the ladder have to grab what they can. A generational star might come up through the academy, and might make sizeable money for their boyhood club. But it's all relative. Football's transfer market is laden with consequence — and adheres to a clear food chain.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Spacious and stylish family home on the market in popular area of Bolton
A five-bedroom detached house in Westhoughton is on sale for £410,000. The property is located on Cherwell Road and is being sold by estate agent Price & Co Properties. According to the estate agent, this spacious house is an ideal match for larger families, offering five double bedrooms, versatile living spaces, and a garden. Modern kitchen with gloss units, integrated appliances, and a dining area set against a light brick feature wall (Image: Zoopla) The estate agent said: "The award-winning sales team at Price & Co are delighted to present this exceptional five-bedroom detached property on the sought-after Cherwell Road, Westhoughton. "Perfectly suited for larger families, this spacious and stylish home boasts five generously sized double bedrooms, versatile living spaces, and an impressive garden—making it a rare find in today's market." The ground floor includes a lounge that has access to the garden through large French doors, allowing for a seamless indoor-outdoor living experience. Family bathroom featuring a tiled bath with overhead shower, WC, and basin beneath a frosted window (Image: Zoopla) There's also a second reception room, currently used as a dining area, which could be transformed into a playroom, snug, or home office. The ground floor also houses a modern kitchen with integrated appliances and a separate utility area, keeping day-to-day life neat and organised. The first and second floors are home to five double bedrooms. Living room with wooden flooring, fireplace, and French doors leading out to the rear garden (Image: Zoopla) A private en-suite complements the master bedroom, and there's also a family bathroom on the first floor The second floor offers two additional bedrooms, providing a quiet retreat for teenagers, guests, or those needing a home office. Price & Co Properties said: "The second floor provides two additional double bedrooms, offering a peaceful retreat ideal for teenagers, guests, or quiet home offices." Sloped-ceiling bedroom on the upper floor with dormer window, blue feature wall, and fitted carpet (Image: Zoopla) Externally, this property boasts a low-maintenance front garden, attractively designed with a mix of stone and established shrubbery. A large driveway and detached garage offer off-road parking for multiple vehicles. The spacious rear garden features both lawn and flagged areas surrounded by mature borders, making it an ideal spot for entertaining or relaxing in all seasons. Rear garden with a lawn, paved patio, and mature planting, enclosed by fencing and accessed via French doors from the house (Image: Zoopla) The listing said: "Outside, the property continues to impress. "The low-maintenance front garden is attractively designed with a mix of stone and established shrubbery, providing year-round kerb appeal. "To the side, a large driveway and detached garage offer off-road parking for multiple vehicles, while the spacious rear garden boasts both lawn and flagged areas surrounded by mature borders—perfect for entertaining or relaxing in all seasons." The property is also a leasehold and has an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C.
