Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by beninho Sun 15 Oct - 20:57

First topic message reminder :

I think bailly does look a good prospect, but he is pretty raw. The spurs pairing is probably the best in tge league as a partnership. I think mendy looks an immense left back, alonso also good, I think rose is better then bertrand though, when fit. I remember a time when full backs had to defend!

by pedro Sat 25 Nov - 0:39

navyblueshorts wrote:
pedro wrote:People knew Weinstein was a dodgy character. At least most in the industry did. It was a public secret. Just as the casting couch was something that did / does exist. So yes, it is/was an integral part of the industry, not only in Hollywood. Men with power and young beautiful women with aspirations. And yes, meetings take place in hotel suites all the time, nothing unusual about that.

But what you could discuss is why it took so long for some of the women to come out? Women that definitely "made it" later on and had nothing to lose by coming out 5-10 years ago. Wouldn't you want to "warn" your co-sisters against a predator by going public? Could it be because these women already knew the "risk" of meeting with Weinstein, but were still willing to run that "risk" in pursuit of fame? And then just let it pass on to he next girl or took the money and ran? Now the past just comes back to haunt them and they feel they have to go public. Mac, things are not always so black or white.
They are in his World.

Except Black Friday because it has racist connotations and symbolises consumerism.

by Plunky Sat 25 Nov - 1:07

Don't know about Jolie, but Paltrow ran to her boyfriend immediately after have rejected weinsteins "advances" and boyfriend (Brad Pitt) apparently warned Weinstein off. Paltrow was told in no uncertain terms not to speak of the matter again. She kept quiet until now and has been very successful in the industry. If she had done otherwise who knows what acting opportunities might have dried up ? We don't know and neither did she.

For the most part he was preying on women who were very young and new to the industry -- women who were least likely to have heard of his reputation. To speak out publically at the time would mean loss of career (who's going to believe them ?) and if they speak out later -- well, apparently they still get blamed don't they ?

Blame is 100pct on Weinstein and on the inner circle of people who knew what was going on and enabled him.

by super_realist Sat 25 Nov - 5:17

beninho wrote:Does anyone honestly believe that these people attended meetings with Weinstein in the knowledge that there was a risk of being sexually assaulted?

Victim blaming is a very ugly trait.

Good grief, I thought Mac was hard of comprehension. Weinstein is a well known creep within the industry. If you aren't suspicious when you end up in a hotel "suite" with him alone then you are being incredibly naïve.

No one is placing any blame on the victims of any harassment or assault.

It's not just Weinstein but being a young woman alone with any powerful man in an environment ought to raise some concerns. How could it not?

by beninho Sat 25 Nov - 6:44

So, I asked earlier, do you believe that these actresses went to a fairly standard business meeting, probably set up by their agents, anticipating to be sexually assaulted?

Also you add he was a well known creep, when did you first becone aware if his rapey ways, I'd be interested to know.

by super_realist Sat 25 Nov - 7:16

I cannot believe that not one of those actresses wasn't in the least bit suspicious of an arrangement where they'd be left alone in a room with a fat sleazy creep, especially in light of the casting couch parody which has been in Hollywood since the 1930's at least.

Where did I say they were anticipating to be sexually assaulted? Talk about deliberately misquoting me.

If you walk down an alley, you don't anticipate getting mugged, but it's more likely than a safer route. If you cannot see the difference then maybe you are as green and as much of an ingénue as Mac is.

Didn't your parents tell you to not go anywhere with strangers? It's human nature to be cautious of such a scenario. Why wouldn't you be concerned about such a "meeting"?

Weinsteins ways were known for years. How long ago was it that Kimmel mentioned it at the Oscars? It was an open secret.

How is it that another sexual predator and harasser Bill Clinton seems to be getting away with it? His stories have been even more well known and even more substantiated than Weinstein.

by pedro Sat 25 Nov - 7:40

Plunky, Jolie and Paltrow were just examples. There were plenty of others who became famous, Judd, Arquette, Graham, Sorvino, McGowan etc. and who all could have spoken out 10 years ago. Mind you, to them it happened in the 90’s or 00’s - plenty of time to speak out since. Paltrow got her Oscar in 1999, I doubt her roles would have dried out had she spoken out in 2005.

And if you bothered to read my post I’m not blaming them for not speaking out at the time, but in the 15-20 years that have passed since.
Ok, all may not have known his rep before meeting him, but many have admitted afterwards, when talking to others about their experiences, that he apparently was well known for being a pig. Once they became famous and had a credible platform shouldn’t they have warned younger girls? I’m not saying it’s not 100% Weisteins fault but wouldn’t you want to warn others if you knew a predator was around? Or are you just too selfish?

PS: Remember the quote from an Oscar nomination where the presenter said about the nominees: “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.”

by pedro Sat 25 Nov - 7:42

Super, Clinton was not fat and ugly.

by Plunky Sat 25 Nov - 10:21

Pedro, I read your post. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my reply. The point I was trying to make was that they probably wouldn't talk about it at the time because they'd lose their career. But if they say nothing, become famous and then speak out say 10 years later some people will question their timing and their motives -- "why speak out now ? Maybe she was happy to "cooperate" with Weinstein in return for some great roles , and now she feels guilty ".

Maybe some of the actresses did warn younger girls when they could -- I really don't know. Maybe some of them knew of his reputation and put themselves in a risky situation. But not all of them. And it doesn't make it right.

Weinstein (or his people) apparently threatened many of the actresses into silence. But what about the men in Hollywood ? If it was such an open secret, why didn't any of them do something about it, or are they all too selfish ?

by super_realist Sat 25 Nov - 19:07

Plunky wrote:Pedro, I read your post. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my reply. The point I was trying to make was that they probably wouldn't talk about it at the time because they'd lose their career. But if they say nothing, become famous and then speak out say 10 years later some people will question their timing and their motives -- "why speak out now ? Maybe she was happy to "cooperate" with Weinstein in return for some great roles , and now she feels guilty ".

Maybe some of the actresses did warn younger girls when they could -- I really don't know. Maybe some of them knew of his reputation and put themselves in a risky situation. But not all of them. And it doesn't make it right.

Weinstein (or his people) apparently threatened many of the actresses into silence. But what about the men in Hollywood ? If it was such an open secret, why didn't any of them do something about it, or are they all too selfish ?

That dreadful director Tarantino said he knew about it and did nothing, presumably because he was protecting his films as Weinstein produced them. I would imagine there's a ton more in a similar position. Everyone had a responsibility to report it, but collectively they failed, but like in the music industry, this is probably the tip of the bell end of a very long shaft so to speak. In my view Tarantino's silence on the matter is every bit as selfish as all those actresses who kept quiet for the good of their career (or bank balance).

I would be willing to bet that a great many of the pop stars from the 60's and 70's had slept with minors either willingly or unwittingly.

by Diggers Sun 26 Nov - 4:09

Palace and Sunderland on the charge! All of Palace's next 5 games are against sides they could/should/need to get something from. Probably defines the rest of their season. Lovely to see Newcastle in free fall.

by kwinigolfer Sun 26 Nov - 6:25

Good day for you Digs, Noocassel & Middlesboro duffed up at home and Coleman getting the "W".
(And the boys in blue win the Dockyard Derby.)

by Diggers Sun 26 Nov - 7:04

As it goes Im off to Pompey tomorrow Kwini, I'll give it your regards, my 8 year old is taking part in some gymnastics exhibition in front of a few hundred people, lots of nerves from daughter and parents!

by dynamark Sun 26 Nov - 9:04

Digs try to hold it together I'm my experience and lots of it the parents are nervy and the kids just love it.
Don't know if anyone watched the Friday night Leic/Wetspam game but we seem to have a manager who aims to draw every game and thinks that is acceptable.

by kwinigolfer Sun 26 Nov - 9:34

Strange choice dyna, his St.Mary's legacy can be seen on Saints' slide down the table. Who would you have wanted, perhaps Shakespeare?

by beninho Sun 26 Nov - 10:22

He's alright Puel. It looks like saints will do worse without him then they did with him. Baggies going for pards. Everton should get big sam.

by super_realist Sun 26 Nov - 19:50

beninho wrote:He's alright Puel. It looks like saints will do worse without him then they did with him. Baggies going for pards. Everton should get big sam.

Everton might need a firefighter, but they don't need a serial loser like Fat Sam, he's already indicated he doesn't want it anyway. They should be a bit more ambitious and try and get either Sean Dyche or Marco Silva.

by beninho Sun 26 Nov - 20:54

I would be very very surprised if watford release silva, I would also be surprised if he wanted to leave at this point in the season. I think dyche would be a good call, though I doubt he would leave at this point after the start they've had.
If Everton really like silva why didnt tgey dump koeman in the summer when he was available.
They look awful under unsworth, and probably shouldn't have sacked koeman without anyobe lined up.
They need a manager to fight them against relegation, big sam or tony pulis should be the choice. Taking a risk in an untried premier league manager usually doesnt work, see marco silva!

by dynamark Sun 26 Nov - 21:31

Not sure Shaky did a lot wrong certainly got us out of trouble last term.No obvious others.
Our first six games were always going to be really tough and looking back we have picked up the points where we would expect.
Trouble is now folk in little Leicester and the owners have expectations.

by **navyblueshorts** Sun 26 Nov - 22:59

dynamark wrote:Not sure Shaky did a lot wrong certainly got us out of trouble last term.No obvious others.
Our first six games were always going to be really tough and looking back we have picked up the points where we would expect.
Trouble is now folk in little Leicester and the owners have expectations.

None of which will ever be realised (at Leicester, or elsewhere) with the sort of stupid, short-term, knee-jerk sacking of a manager before they have a chance to actually do anything.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 5:32

What do the 10 or so clubs that are facing relegation every year expect? They're going to struggle every year, and they know it. So what use is it sacking managers all the time? I'd like to see clubs sack players once in a while.

If we can have KPI and Performance Management reports on us, why don't footballers? It's really stupid that players get away with poor performance all the time. If that was any of us, we'd either get a poor appraisal, no annual bonus or get let go. About time a club thought a bit more radically for a change and found all members of the club to be liable for results.

If they want to make that most pointless of roles, the club captain to actually mean something, how about putting a bit of a performance based relevance to the position?

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 5:50

How do you know players don't get those things? Players get appraised every week on the pitch, by thousands of people, if they don't play well they get dropped. If they are assessed as unfit they can be fined or dropped. Contracts have all sorts of performance related bonuses. If a club doesn't like a player they sell him on.
Sure players get paid a fortune, but I don't see any legitimacy in any of your claims about how they are treated, they are just assumptions.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 5:59

There doesn't appear to get any consequences does there? If I get a 2 in my appraisal, I don't get a bonus.

What I'd like to see is players have more in their contract to try to improve effort. At present, footballers get paid so much, they have no incentive to perform.

If you play for Liverpool, Everton, Southampton, West Brom, Palace, Newcastle etc, you're never going to win anything. If you lose a bit of ground in the league, you'll still get paid. Why not introduce a reason to perform, such as they'll be out on their arses if they fail.

If players got performance appraisals, career development, KPI's to do every year, don't you think it would be common knowledge?

At present the worst that can happen as far as we know is you get dropped, but you still get paid.

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 6:28

Why would it be common knowledge, I don't know how your appraisal works, so you know how mine does?
I do know for a fact that players are expected to return to training in a certain fitness level, which is rigidly assessed, failure to do so leads to fines.
You don't need to win trophies to get performance bonuses, win bonuses are common, some players have contracts that have incentives when they make appearances.
If anything footballers are under far greater scrutiny and pressure to perform than most people.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 6:49

Why would it be common knowledge? Eh, why not? It's common knowledge that every decent size company in Britain does it in some shape or form. Why would the 140 odd professional football clubs in this country operate under some sort of shroud of secrecy? Why would they bother to hide it?

It's hardly a big deal to "expect" a player to return to football in a certain fitness level. You wouldn't be very professional if you didn't, but then again compared to many sports they aren't all that professional I suppose.

The bottom line Diggers is I would like to see them more culpable for their shocking performances. If you look at Everton for example. To a man they have been truly dreadful this year, yet the only person who pays for it is the manager, well why not sack a few players along with him?

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 6:55

You can sack them, but they have a contract. So just like a manager they would get compensation. That is true if anyone in the country under contact. It's no difference.
Most people's assessments mean absolutely jack, and again, how do you know they do it?

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 6:55

Just seen the list for SPOTY. What a crappy list.

Terrible year for British sport that it's flooded with token participants.

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 6:56

Would your company wipe off a multi million pound asset from uts bottom line in one swoop? Sigurdson is a 45m asset to everton football club, but lets sack him off.

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 6:59

Most day so nobosy gives a toss about assessing the performance of your average Joe. Every time a football plays he is scrutinised by club and fans. I'm a teacher and can guarantee I'm assessed more than most, but it's nothing like a footballer faces every time they play.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 7:00

Diggers wrote:You can sack them, but they have a contract. So just like a manager they would get compensation. That is true if anyone in the country under contact. It's no difference.
Most people's assessments mean absolutely jack, and again, how do you know they do it?

Yeah of course they have contracts, but you would pay them off just like you pay off the manager. How much has serial losers like AVB, Wodgson or Fat Sam made out of being mediocre?

Senior players could quite easily have a clause in their contract that allows them to be paid off at a lesser rate if they don't gain a certain number of points. Pretty sure then you'd see players trying a bit harder. The premier is 50% dross teams who just coast along hoping not to be one of the worst three. It's turgid stuff.

They could all do with a rocket up their jacksy.

Of course nothing will ever happen and all these big leagues will continue to have a longer tail than the England cricket team batting line up.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 7:03

Diggers wrote:Most day so nobosy gives a toss about assessing the performance of your average Joe. Every time a football plays he is scrutinised by club and fans. I'm a teacher and can guarantee I'm assessed more than most, but it's nothing like a footballer faces every time they play.

Yet, the fans can criticise, but their opinion means nothing and nothing ever happens to the players, it's always the manager who pays the price.

Footballers are paid a fortune to take flak from the fans, it's a pity more don't put in the effort. Fans don't usually mind if they see players trying their hardest.

by pedro Tue 28 Nov - 7:08

If a player on a contract stinks maybe you’ll try to sell him. But it usually requires that the new club is willing to pay the old salary - which can then be difficult if he stinks. The old club can then subsidise the salary and basically minimise their loss. But you can’t do that too often as player signings is the turf of the club mangement, not the head coach. And management doesnt want to look stupid vs the owners. That’s why it’s easier to sack the coach.

by kwinigolfer Tue 28 Nov - 7:17

You can focus all you like on the players, coaches and managers but it's mostly sycophantic foreign billionaire autograph hunting owners that underwrite the fat playing contracts, and all they care about is the Prem/Europe, staying in the Prem/Europe or getting to the Prem/Europe, certainly not the communities they play in.

Sure some players loaf about the field and some managers are useless (or have their fingers in the till), but it's the owners who are ultimately to blame for the nonsense we see when players check out - precious little incentive for some not to.

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 7:40

super_realist wrote:
Diggers wrote:Most day so nobosy gives a toss about assessing the performance of your average Joe. Every time a football plays he is scrutinised by club and fans. I'm a teacher and can guarantee I'm assessed more than most, but it's nothing like a footballer faces every time they play.

Yet, the fans can criticise, but their opinion means nothing and nothing ever happens to the players, it's always the manager who pays the price.

Footballers are paid a fortune to take flak from the fans, it's a pity more don't put in the effort. Fans don't usually mind if they see players trying their hardest.

Sure, and senior management for badly performing companies get laid off all the time don't they? Or do they just get paid bonuses anyway? You'd have sacked Stones and Sterling last year, that would have been a genius move wouldn't it?
I'm staggered you have such great belief in the average British persons work ethic that you hold it up as a beacon for sportsmen to aspire to.
Hot air and sweeping generalisation, as per normal when it comes to football.

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 7:42

My basic knowledge off footballers contracts tend to be, Basic wage, appearance bonus, goal bonus or bonus for certain number of goals. Bonus based on cup performances, and final league positions. Some have relegation clauses in terms of a percentage wage decrease, some dont, I tjink Sunderland are still paying Rodwell 60k pw.

Bet Leicester and Swansea wish Hull sacked Maguire and Clucus.

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 7:44

super_realist wrote:
Diggers wrote:Most day so nobosy gives a toss about assessing the performance of your average Joe. Every time a football plays he is scrutinised by club and fans. I'm a teacher and can guarantee I'm assessed more than most, but it's nothing like a footballer faces every time they play.

Yet, the fans can criticise, but their opinion means nothing and nothing ever happens to the players, it's always the manager who pays the price.

Footballers are paid a fortune to take flak from the fans, it's a pity more don't put in the effort. Fans don't usually mind if they see players trying their hardest.

What players do you see not putting in the effort?

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 7:54

Big sam has seen his negotiating power go up on a daily basis after the unsworth show at everton.

by Diggers Tue 28 Nov - 8:24

The whole try hard theory is utter bollox IMO. To play sport well you need to relax and be confident, players under pressure, charging around like nutters, usually leads to crap football.

by super_realist Tue 28 Nov - 18:46

So you think Everton, Palace and West Ham are putting in the effort?

Senior managers and directors DO get sacked all the time (or leave "mutually")

I wouldn't have sacked Stones or Sterling, but I might have given them a 3 for their appraisal. Their performance met the minimum standards.

Trying hard doesn't mean running around like a madman. It can be something as simple as focussing on the game. Do you think Everton were focussed against Southampton or Atalanta?
They were too easy to push over, it wasn't brilliance that beat them, it was their own lethargy and lack of interest.

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 19:35

Love the weird appraisal thing, bit strange, and complete nonsense, but I love that you have thought about an appraisal grading. I am guessing you watched every Man City game last season to come to your conclusion?

I dont see any issues with the effort those teams are putting in, Palace got a 90th minute winner and a 96th minute equaliser within the last few games and beat Chelsea. Everon have someone with no real management experience in charge, and had Gylfi playing as an almost left back the other day, they also pulled back two goals against Watford.

Teams lose games, usually its because the other team played better, had a better game plan or just better players. The lack of effort thing is a line usually used on terrible talk radio phone ins, by people with no other argument.

by pedro Tue 28 Nov - 20:48

super, I have to give you that you are very opinionated for someone who doesn’t watch football and is not interested in it. Have you ever been a politician?

by McLaren Tue 28 Nov - 21:24

Super

Do you think any decent player would sign for a club with the sort of contract structure you are suggesting? Why would they play under that system when they could take their pick of other clubs across 5/6 leagues in Europe?

Also I assume your appraisal didn't go too well of late given that you now appear to be in some bottom rung job where your internet access is blocked.

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 21:33

I don't get how you can be so critical of football yet have no allegiance to any team. I even prefer people who glory hunt, like people in Scotland supporting Man Utd, Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Something must get you interested in the game in the first place.

I'm a Wycombe Wanderers fan, we are not very good, but I still follow them and feel disappointed when we lose. I had a liking for spurs when I was a kid, but started going to Wycombe in the mid 90's and just stuck with it, as you do.

by JAS Tue 28 Nov - 22:57

super_realist wrote:Just seen the list for SPOTY. What a crappy list.

Terrible year for British sport that it's flooded with token participants.

Two horse race really between Farah & Froome

by beninho Tue 28 Nov - 23:02

JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Just seen the list for SPOTY. What a crappy list.

Terrible year for British sport that it's flooded with token participants.

Two horse race really between Farah & Froome

Think AJ has a chance, boxers always do well in SPOTY, and he is the only one to take the boxing vote, and he is a world champion! I like Peaty, but doubt swimming will get enough votes.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 28 Nov - 23:07

JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Just seen the list for SPOTY. What a crappy list.

Terrible year for British sport that it's flooded with token participants.

Two horse race really between Farah & Froome

I'd expect Hamilton to be up there too TBH. Kane will probably do quite well also, as he's a household name. And as ben says, the boxers usually do ok. Joshua did have a fine win over Klitschko in one of the better fights this year.

Personally would quite like to see Peaty do well, two world titles (and a relay silver) and swimming wayyyyyyyyy faster than anyone else has every swum breaststroke. Unfortunately, though he's becoming a bit better known, I suspect the general public haven't heard too much about him still. Would actually have him ahead of Farah TBH, as Farah "only" came second in the 5,000 this year. Although Farah might get the award in a "lifetime achievement" a la Ryan Giggs.

Another I'd like to see do well is Anja Shrubsole, whose 6 wickets in the final saw England women win the cricket world cup. Women's cricket is increasingly competitive, with SA making the semis this time, and India going agonisingly close to winning the whole thing. But again, I don't expect much recognition from the general public. Maybe they'll get team of the year (apart from them and rugby union, not many contenders for that?).

Overall I agree it's a pretty ordinary list. The fact Jo Konta is on it for making the Wimbledon semi-final speaks volumes.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 28 Nov - 23:14

beninho wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Diggers wrote:Most day so nobosy gives a toss about assessing the performance of your average Joe. Every time a football plays he is scrutinised by club and fans. I'm a teacher and can guarantee I'm assessed more than most, but it's nothing like a footballer faces every time they play.

Yet, the fans can criticise, but their opinion means nothing and nothing ever happens to the players, it's always the manager who pays the price.

Footballers are paid a fortune to take flak from the fans, it's a pity more don't put in the effort. Fans don't usually mind if they see players trying their hardest.

What players do you see not putting in the effort?

Oooo, I don't know. How about the entire Leicester squad just prior to getting Ranieri the boot? How about most of West Ham just prior to getting Bilic the boot? How often do you hear "The Manager's lost the dressing room." ? Fair enough if there's a breakdown in a relationship, but they should still go out and be professional on the pitch.

by JAS Tue 28 Nov - 23:17

Joshua would be a good shout at a podium place. Just hope it’s not a footballer who’s won nothing or the automotive engineering demonstrator.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 28 Nov - 23:20

Personally, I'd like to see Froome win. The TdF-Vuelta double that he accomplished was pretty special. He also nabbed a medal at the World Champs Time Trial for good measure.

by JAS Wed 29 Nov - 0:18

So the 5th in line is going to marry a Half Afro/American, Catholic, divorcee. When it comes to Royalty and the monarchy i’m fairly ambivalent really so good luck to them. It does tickle me though how conflicted a Royalist, racist, bigot, bible thumper will feel about the impending nuptials.
A more pleasant sign of the times that the general consensus is one of acceptance compared to the last time an American divorcee stumbled across British royalty.

by kwinigolfer Wed 29 Nov - 0:27

Froome for me. Konta should withdraw her name.
Embarrassing but assume it's because the Beeb still has Wimbledon (don't they? Don't actually know tbh.).

by Sponsored content