Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by McLaren Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

Super

I saw the first two sets and a bit, then went out to get dinner. Wish I had stuck around to watch it.

by Nay Thu May 21, 2015 6:14 pm

Im not saying Liverpool should give in by any means, they have every right and should play hardball, to a) either get the best contract for them or B) The best price they can for a disruptive player.

Also for the record i think Sterling would be wrong to move clubs just now.

I also think that they should probably have some sort of classes on contract negotiations, agents and that sort of stuff at the academy's. (They may i don't know). As it would come in handy for other types of deals as well.

In my opinion now football has backed itself into this corner, with young players getting too much too soon And especially before they have achieved anything. I mean at some clubs youth players will be on 2,3,4 grand a week and they dont have a chance of making first team.

I

by kwinigolfer Thu May 21, 2015 6:18 pm

When was the last time you slagged off your company in public for being sh1te Mac?

Let's face it, LFC is Fenway's toy and you can bet your b0ll0cks that they'll increase its value significantly and will make agents like Sterling's squirm.

by kwinigolfer Thu May 21, 2015 6:21 pm

Agreed Nay, usually they pay that money when they're so young just like futures and to make sure no-one else gets them.

If Jordan Ibe has half the type of 15/16 season that it looks like he might, how long do you think he'll be content with his 35 grand a week for five years? More like five months!

by Davie Thu May 21, 2015 8:45 pm

I kinda agree with Nay Bother. Henry and Fenway should realize that this isn't major league baseball or NFL

I don't like Sterling - but surely he has a right to secure the best future for him - and that's clearly not at Liverpool

by super_realist Thu May 21, 2015 9:24 pm

Let's be fair here. Sterling has achieved precisely nothing so far in his career. He's been over-inflated massively by the media, yet, has barely made the slightest impression on the Premier League, of course, he has the right to get paid by whoever pays the most providing they want him, but I think what irks people is that Sterling as an embryonic 20 year old with no CV is being supremely arrogant by thinking at his young and unestablished age, that he warrants the type of move he's appearing to demand. Compare him to the more dignified and reserved Harry Kane, who's arguably had a better season and made a far bigger impression and it's easy to see why Sterling attracts such derision.

Yes, he's showing aspiration and ambition, something I'd usually admire, despite no actual offers being made, but does he really have the skills to pay the bills? I'm not so sure. Seems like just another over-rated English knobend to me. At 20, i'd expect him to screw the nut and EARN the move, rather than assume on no evidence at all that he deserves it.

by kwinigolfer Thu May 21, 2015 9:26 pm

Quite right Davie, but Raheem Sterling needs to take some responsibility for his own actions and make sure that, if he's trying to blackmail his way into a speedy transfer, he does it with more finesse than the sledgehammer approach.

It doesn't matter which club you engineer a transfer to, if everyone is just playing with a 12-month mindset, they won't succeed.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu May 21, 2015 9:39 pm

raycastleunited wrote:Why is the phrase "England top order" always followed with the word "collapse"?

More ammo for the KP fans.

Not really, no. Not unless it's blank ammo.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu May 21, 2015 9:42 pm

Nay Bother wrote:...But a player decides to move, be it for money or playing at club with more chance of silverware and all hell breaks loose...

Ok then, would love to see some huge club offer Mr. Raheem D. Head a contract on, say, £50k p/w. After all, he's only after trophies so the salary is an afterthought right? I mean, £50k p/w is more than enough to live on and it's all about the trophies right?

by super_realist Thu May 21, 2015 9:48 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:When was the last time you slagged off your company in public for being sh1te Mac?

.

Mac won't even publicly admit what job he does, far less for whom.

by beninho Fri May 22, 2015 8:19 am

Liverpool poached Sterling when he was 15, from QPR. He wanted to move to a bigger club, and receive a higher wage. He now wants to do the same thing again. Liverpool poached Ibe from Wycombe when he was similar age. Unfortunately for Liverpool they are included in the football merry go round. Sterling and Ibe both thought they could go on to better things by joining a bigger club. Nothing has changed, its just that Liverpool are not any threat to winning anything soon, so why not go somewhere you can get paid more and potentially win something.

Sterling is a very talented footballer, he has pace, and trickery, and last season with Suarez he was excellent. He has had a much better career so far then Harry Kane, and he is being talked about as 40million, and is 3 years older. In football you pay big money for potential. SOme of the worlds most expensive teenagers confirm this, Aguero went for 22million euro at 19, he was playing in Argentina, Jon Obi Mikel went for 24million euro at 19 to chelsea. And Wayne rooney for 30million when a teenager. There has been some terrible buys aswell, like Saviola, and Anderson both for massive money when kids. But players have always been sold for big money without really doing much initially apart from breaking into a team. It is just that there is more money available, and prices are even more inflated. God knows what Man Uted would have paid if Rooney was coming through within the last few years.

by McLaren Fri May 22, 2015 1:36 pm

super_realist wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:When was the last time you slagged off your company in public for being sh1te Mac?

.

Mac won't even publicly admit what job he does, far less for whom.

As far as I am aware not one poster on this board has stated what their job is. I know you work in the oil and gas industry but you could be anything from a cleaner to a scuba diver, so why don't you pony up and tell us what you do first?

by Roller_Coaster Fri May 22, 2015 1:49 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
raycastleunited wrote:Why is the phrase "England top order" always followed with the word "collapse"?

More ammo for the KP fans.
Not really, no. Not unless it's blank ammo.

Agreed, that's nuts.

drumroll

by mystiroakey Fri May 22, 2015 1:50 pm

I have told everyone.

As has 90% . It's only you that hasnt

by McLaren Sat May 23, 2015 6:03 pm

Question for the Irish posters on here.

Would there have been a postal vote available to the Irish players playing at wentworth or elsewhere outside Ireland?

by Be_the_ball Sat May 23, 2015 7:30 pm

Hi Mc, no. There is no accommodation for a postal vote. However expats made their way from all over the globe to make sure it was a resounding Yes. It trended on twitter yesterday #HomeToVote. A very proud day today.

by McLaren Sat May 23, 2015 8:40 pm

Apparently none of the Irish golfers were too fussed about the cause then?

Yes the scenes of people returning to vote were wonderful and they have achieved a deserved outcome. Well done Ireland.

I just wondered if there were exceptional circumstances that would get you a postal vote. The golfers should have chartered a flight back across after Fridays round, voted, and then jump back to London. A bet the round trip could have been done in a matter of hours.

by beninho Sat May 23, 2015 8:58 pm

Fuk Fuk Fuk Fuk Fuk Fuk Fuk. I hate football and the fu@king play offs.

by Be_the_ball Sat May 23, 2015 9:30 pm

Yes Mc, its 45 mins from Dublin to London so definitely doable, they seem a tolerant lot but you never know, maybe they were confident of a yes vote Wink

by Mad for Chelsea Sat May 23, 2015 10:15 pm

so I've just read this

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/23/cleveland-officer-not-guilty-shot-137-times-police

I just don't know what to say anymore... How f@cked up is that?

by pedro Sat May 23, 2015 11:59 pm

Here's the Irish Archbishop's response to the Irish yes vote: "Oh boy!"

by westisbest Sun May 24, 2015 12:06 am

end of the day, who cares if you are gay.

if gay people want to get married then they should and fair play the yes vote.

gay, straight, we are all human and life is short.

cheers.

by kwinigolfer Sun May 24, 2015 12:55 am

Well said Chelsea . . . . . . .

Sad thing is, it happens every week.

by Be_the_ball Sun May 24, 2015 9:36 am

"Here's the Irish Archbishop's response to the Irish yes vote: "Oh boy!""

I hope your not confusing being gay with being a pedophile Pedro.

The No argument which included the Taliban, sorry I mean the Catholic Church was essentially based on Goats and Volcanoes, ie: people would end up marring Goats and Ireland would be swallowed by Volcanoes. ..

by **navyblueshorts** Sun May 24, 2015 7:47 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:so I've just read this

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/23/cleveland-officer-not-guilty-shot-137-times-police

I just don't know what to say anymore... How f@cked up is that?

Can see the point re. that one officer but the overall philosophy re. law enforcement is ridiculous. Then again, that's what I imagine one gets when one has utterly batsh!t gun laws.

by McLaren Sun May 24, 2015 7:53 pm

Navy

"Can see the point re. that one officer"

Can you clear that last post up for me. Are you saying you can see why someone who fired at unarmed victims got let off?

by JAS Sun May 24, 2015 8:11 pm

McLaren wrote:Apparently none of the Irish golfers were too fussed about the cause then?

Yes the scenes of people returning to vote were wonderful and they have achieved a deserved outcome. Well done Ireland.

I just wondered if there were exceptional circumstances that would get you a postal vote. The golfers should have chartered a flight back across after Fridays round, voted, and then jump back to London. A bet the round trip could have been done in a matter of hours.

Aye Rory probably missed the cut because he was worried about getting back in time to cast his vote :-p

by **navyblueshorts** Sun May 24, 2015 8:19 pm

McLaren wrote:Navy

"Can see the point re. that one officer"

Can you clear that last post up for me. Are you saying you can see why someone who fired at unarmed victims got let off?

I can see the point that it was hard to prove he killed them. Are you suggesting he gets convicted in absence of definitive proof he killed them?
The fact he went Rambo and fired off however many through the windsceen from the bonnet isn't necessarily anything but tabloid news. For sure he shouldn't be using firearms any more though as he clearly hasn't got the right temperament to be anywhere near them.

by super_realist Mon May 25, 2015 6:42 am

The shameful thing is that there needed to be a vote at all. How about a referendum on the Church keeping out of things which are none of their business.
Marriage didn't come from religion, they are just permitted to conduct them. Nobody is forcing the church to do these services, so what's the problem?

by hend085 Mon May 25, 2015 2:28 pm

super_realist wrote:The shameful thing is that there needed to be a vote at all. How about a referendum on the Church keeping out of things which are none of their business.
Marriage didn't come from religion, they are just permitted to conduct them. Nobody is forcing the church to do these services, so what's the problem?

maybe the church will be forced to conduct the services? The recent court case in NI (granted a different legal jurisdiction) might have some wider implications.

by super_realist Mon May 25, 2015 2:33 pm

[quote="hend085"]

super_realist wrote:The shameful thing is that there needed to be a vote at all. How about a referendum on the Church keeping out of things which are none of their business.
Marriage didn't come from religion, they are just permitted to conduct them. Nobody is forcing the church to do these services, so what's the problem?

hend085 wrote:
maybe the church will be forced to conduct the services? The recent court case in NI (granted a different legal jurisdiction) might have some wider implications.

I don't think you can force anyone to hold a service, for example I don't think you could force the Catholic Church to marry a divorcee within their grounds. They have the right to refuse as far as I know.

Why any gay person would want to get married in such a bigoted place and under the teachings of such an immoral and bigoted book, I've no idea.

by McLaren Mon May 25, 2015 3:13 pm

As I pointed out on a thread about single sex golf clubs like Muirfield, as soon as you offer a service to the general public you have to avoid discrimination as per the equality act.

It the Muirfield case the service offered discriminates based on sex as a woman stumping up the same fee as men does not have access to Muirfields full set of amenities.

I am guessing there is some loop hole that gets you out of this on religious grounds, which means churches can offer a discriminatory service to the public. (i.e offer marriage (the service) but only to heterosexual couples)

This is one reason why it is important to fight the case against religion as it is still overly privileged within our legal system.

by super_realist Mon May 25, 2015 3:23 pm

In that case Mac, then religion doesn't deserve charitable/tax free status.

by pedro Mon May 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Mac, in the US they now have the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

by GunsGerms Mon May 25, 2015 4:14 pm

Be_the_ball wrote:Hi Mc, no. There is no accommodation for a postal vote. However expats made their way from all over the globe to make sure it was a resounding Yes. It trended on twitter yesterday #HomeToVote. A very proud day today.

There is a postal vote but only for for certain categories of people including people unable to vote at their polling station because of their occupation. Golfers could have had a postal vote if they wanted to.

by GunsGerms Mon May 25, 2015 4:22 pm

super_realist wrote:The shameful thing is that there needed to be a vote at all. How about a referendum on the Church keeping out of things which are none of their business.
Marriage didn't come from religion, they are just permitted to conduct them. Nobody is forcing the church to do these services, so what's the problem?

The church have no say in Irish legislation whatsoever which of course you are fully aware of. The landslide victory is evidence enough that Irish people aren't influenced by the church either. Only one of all the electoral constituencies voted against same sex marriage.

by super_realist Mon May 25, 2015 4:29 pm

It's a commendation to the Irish that they overwhelmingly voted in favour of the result, however, it's a disgrace that a referendum was held. Why should anyone be able to vote on whether someone can get married or not? It's none of their business.

I assume that the Church was at the forefront of the No vote given how they think they have the prescription for marriage, but when it comes to equality, there shouldn't be a referendum as you are basically giving people the opportunity to persist with discrimination legally.

Marriage is the business of no one other than the two getting married. Someone else wedding, affects no one elses, and I'm glad that 2/3rds of the Irish think the same.

by GunsGerms Mon May 25, 2015 4:56 pm

I asked a no voter why he was voting no and he said "what next, a man getting married to a sheep"

I'm not surprised with the result nor that there are people against it. Prejudice is a very human condition and exists in us all.

You arent quite correct that someone else's wedding affects no one else. There are implications for children by changing the constitution to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage. However, the implications were all positive in my opinion and therefore I am happy with the change.

by super_realist Mon May 25, 2015 5:02 pm

What I mean is that the marriage of a same sex couple has zero bearing on anyone elses marriage. It doesn't affect other peoples marriages.

Glad they've changed it, but not surprised that there is still a sizeable proportion against it.

by pedro Mon May 25, 2015 7:32 pm

GG, Drunks, drug addicts, scizophenics etc. have always been allowed to marry and have children. Where's the patronising legalislation here?

by Be_the_ball Mon May 25, 2015 8:40 pm

" it's a disgrace that a referendum was held."

The Irish govt could have legislated for SSM, however as protection of Marriage and The family are enshrined in the Irish constitution that legislation could have been challenged legally by those against it. The constitution can only be changed by popular vote, therefore to prevent legal challenges a referendum was called. Nothing shameful about democracy.

by GunsGerms Tue May 26, 2015 9:05 am

pedro wrote:GG, Drunks, drug addicts, scizophenics etc. have always been allowed to marry and have children. Where's the patronising legalislation here?

I know, I voted yes as I agreed with same sex marriage and the implications it has for kids.

by super_realist Tue May 26, 2015 9:58 am

Be_the_ball wrote:" it's a disgrace that a referendum was held."

The Irish govt could have legislated for SSM, however as protection of Marriage and The family are enshrined in the Irish constitution that legislation could have been challenged legally by those against it. The constitution can only be changed by popular vote, therefore to prevent legal challenges a referendum was called. Nothing shameful about democracy.

Nothing shameful about democracy, but can you imagine if you replaced the subject of SSM with something like disability or race. You wouldn't need a referendum for that.

by GunsGerms Tue May 26, 2015 10:26 am

It is great that we are getting closer to having an equal society in Ireland. However, one group of people continues to be discriminated against more than anyone else under Irish legislation. If is often not debated or talked about because it can be quite unpopular to do so. Unfortunately I cannot see this group of individuals achieving equality any time soon either. Their treatment in the eyes of the law in my opinion is far worse than any other group and Ireland lags behind many other countries in this respect.

by McLaren Tue May 26, 2015 10:29 am

When did the current Irish constitution come into effect?

by GunsGerms Tue May 26, 2015 10:32 am

McLaren wrote:When did the current Irish constitution come into effect?

Google is your friend. 1937.

by super_realist Tue May 26, 2015 10:52 am

GunsGerms wrote:It is great that we are getting closer to having an equal society in Ireland. However, one group of people continues to be discriminated against more than anyone else under Irish legislation. If is often not debated or talked about because it can be quite unpopular to do so. Unfortunately I cannot see this group of individuals achieving equality any time soon either. Their treatment in the eyes of the law in my opinion is far worse than any other group and Ireland lags behind many other countries in this respect.

Which group are you referring to?

by GunsGerms Tue May 26, 2015 10:54 am

Unmarried fathers.

by raycastleunited Tue May 26, 2015 11:02 am

super_realist wrote:
Marriage is the business of no one other than the two getting married.

Try telling this to my mother in law!!! Laugh

by raycastleunited Tue May 26, 2015 11:02 am

super_realist wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:It is great that we are getting closer to having an equal society in Ireland. However, one group of people continues to be discriminated against more than anyone else under Irish legislation. If is often not debated or talked about because it can be quite unpopular to do so. Unfortunately I cannot see this group of individuals achieving equality any time soon either. Their treatment in the eyes of the law in my opinion is far worse than any other group and Ireland lags behind many other countries in this respect.

Which group are you referring to?

Leprechauns

by super_realist Tue May 26, 2015 11:05 am

People with their eyes too close together?

by Sponsored content