Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

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!

[beninho]

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.

look up some of the Mail Online comments.

[Davie]

http://newsthump.com/2017/11/28/psychiatric-wards-overwhelmed-as-daily-mail-readers-try-to-like-brown-skinned-immigrant/

[pedro]

It does tickle me though how conflicted a Royalist, racist, bigot, bible thumper will feel about the impending nuptials.

Grandpa?

[McLaren]

Davie :thumbsup:

[Shotrock]

Another brown-skinned immigrant goes on public assistance? Why would any Daily Mail reader be surprised about that?

[pedro]

sr

[super_realist]

Another brown-skinned immigrant goes on public assistance? Why would any Daily Mail reader be surprised about that?

More like man on benefits marries celebrity.

[super_realist]

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.

Beninho, I was trying to put it in a modern parlance. It would seem that players are completely absolved of any responsibility for poor performances. They appear to face no action because of it, they aren't responsible for it would seem.

Of course no club or footballer is going to sign a contract which makes them in any way responsible for poor performances, but wouldn't it set the cat among the pigeons a little bit if players who did underperform and who did have a senior role in the club (the stupid role of Captain for instance) and got sacked alongside the manager?

Might it not raise the effort a little bit if you find yourself without a club because you aren't performing? If the manager can be sacked, why not the players not pulling their weight?

[kwinigolfer]

Great in theory supes, but much easier with a young no-name than Ozil for instance, or even Ashley Williams.

Joe Hart's "dismissal" by Guardiola probably comes closest to your policy. And look where that got him last year - this year's edition barely tested as yet.


Nice BBC headline: "Best joins Charlton" as Leon moves to SE London. Couldn't have squeezed Denis the Menace in there?

[beninho]

Player gets sacked, has to have his contract paid up in full. Then becomes a free agent so signs for another club, no transfer fee so gets paid a good wage. That'll show him.

[McLaren]

Super

Are you cracking up? You are spouting utter garbage.

Who benefits if a players is sacked?

[super_realist]

Mac, the same people benefit if a player is sacked as if someone underperforming in your workplace is sacked.

I know you've never had a good job where people actually are required to have skill and an education to carry out their job and are actually measured on their performance for which they might climb a progressive career ladder, but the rest of the workforce benefits if you lose someone who isn't performing well and replace them with someone who does.

What possible benefit would you gain from keeping someone who isn't doing their job effectively? Why would you want such a person to represent your work/team?

Kwini is quite correct about Joe Hart, one of the worst keepers statistically in the league and Guardiola effectively dismissed him. Hart then has to go down to a team more suited to his ability, Torino was obviously too high, and West Ham isn't going well for him either. Where next for him?

Of course a footballer is never going to go poor, but why would you risk being punted out of a top team and have to play for crap like West Ham?

[beninho]

Ramblings

[McLaren]

Super

Are you not getting this? If you sack a player then you probably have to pay all or most of the rest of his contract, you get no transfer fee and a rival might benefit from that player on a free transfer.

As someone (ben if think) tried to point out to you earlier a player is completely different to a normal employee and is more like a major asset. If a large asset of a company under performed would you just let someone else use it and pay for the upkeep?

[kwinigolfer]

I would add Jack Wilshere to the Joe Hart list, clearly farmed out by Wenger to get fit and prove himself. A "large asset" underperforming in the Arsenal company and who was rapidly depreciating on the Arse's bench.
Jack seems to have got the message - pity it hasn't got thru to Wenger who persists with the unproven Iwobi and non-trier Ozil.
(Loaning Walcott to Eastleigh would also be a good idea . . . . . . )

[super_realist]

Super

Are you not getting this?  If you sack a player then you probably have to pay all or most of the rest of his contract, you get no transfer fee and a rival might benefit from that player on a free transfer.

As someone (ben if think) tried to point out to you earlier a player is completely different to a normal employee and is more like a major asset.  If a large asset of a company under performed would you just let someone else use it and pay for the upkeep?

Mac, I completely understand that you have to pay off the players contract. Why would you think I thought you didn't? They have to do this with a manager. How is sacking a player and that player going to another club any different from a manager being sacked and going to another club?

Perhaps when/if you ever do a professional job you'll understand the concept of productivity. They already do this to a certain degree by dropping them from the team, extra training or putting them out on loan, or sometimes even ending the contract by "mutual" agreement.

It's not about whether someone else gets your "asset". It's about getting rid of one which isn't working for you, and which might be having a deleterious effect on your workforce, sometimes that is worth more than the hassle of keeping them and worth ditching a transfer fee for. Someone like Adebayor, Van Hooydonk, or Berahino would be an example of someone being disruptive and who require a certain treatment to stop the team suffering as a result of their behaviour. The vile Joey Barton was effectively sacked from the equally vile Rangers if you recall.

If I recall, you had no problem with Adam Johnson, Ched Evans or Luke McCormack being sacked for their behaviour off the pitch, why not sack someone for their performance, or lack of it, on the pitch?

[beninho]

Kwini, don't fall into the trap that ozil is lazy non trier. Hasn't he got ridiculous stats for km run in a game and also one of the highest assists in the keague since he joined.

Barainho sold for 13m, adebayor sold for 25m, even at city he got loaned to madrid and spurs. Pvh sold for 3.5m. Even barton went to a premier league club after leaving rangers. You think the clubs shoukd have sacked them?

I dont get this argument, clubs can terminate contracts im sure, they dont because its a non runner. Its just a ridiculous argument.

[beninho]

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/are-top-level-football-players-employees-or-economic-assets-for-their-clubs

I also think ffp takes into account the value and the length of his contract.

[super_realist]

Why not Ben? We keep hearing about how minted clubs are these days. Many could certainly afford to.

My point is not necessarily that clubs should always sack poor players, rather that they should be more culpable for poor results and at times alongside the manager could be sacked. Luke Shaw for example appears to be dreadful, or at least, not good enough for Man United. Rather than keep hold of him, sell him or pay up his contract. Why hold on to players like this who could just drag others down?

More than 50% of Premier League managers get sacked every year, Leeds seem to sack one every couple of months. Money is not a reason not to sack a player here or there.

It's more the point that sacking a player might send out a message in that it might cause people to be less comfortable and less apathetic because they pick their money up and get a game most weeks. If there was the spectre that you might be sacked for underperforming, wouldn't that change your focus a bit?

England International team are a good example of no money being involved and constant malaise and underperforming with truly wretched performances not incurring any sort of penalty to the players. The same guys, who can be good for their clubs are so utterly miserable and hapless for their country. Yet nothing changes. Isn't this a good reason to sack players from the international set up for example?
Why for goodness sake does Joe Hart still get a game? He's got an atrocious record for England in tournaments. Why keep giving him a game?

[beninho]

Luke SHaw is not dreadful, though I accept that he has not hit the same heights after his leg break, but if the manager is not picking him, then how is he going to get better. If he was released by Man Utd, he would appear at another good premier league club. Man Utd would not get 15/20m for him which they would if he is sold now on the market.

But it wont send a message at all, because they will just join another club. It will not make people less comfortable, because they will still get the money of the contract. Footballers that make it to the premier league are all very talented, players that struggle at one club, may be brilliant at the next one. Its the managers responsibility to get the best out of the players. He picks the team, he plays them in what formation he chooses, its on his head.

Sack from the international set up? What the holy fuk are you on about. The players are picked on the basis of who the manager thinks is best. If he wants to drop someone he drops them.

[Roller_Coaster]

Player wants to go to another club. Deliberately plays cr@p, gets sacked. Pops up at other club as free agent, not tied by transfer window.

Miraculously rejuvenated player turns in good performances for new club.

That level of accountability under the appraisal system is a nice idea in principle, but relies on there being a suitable pool of talent that would make the player fear for not getting another job.

Moving off on a tangent but harking back to one comment earlier regarding contract structures, a mate used to work at a bank or building society that had a prominent member of the Liverpool team (late 90's I think). The due diligence they obtained for this player included his contract (for source of wealth or support of how he came to have how much he had to invest) and it included a lose bonus. An effing lose bonus. If you lose you get an extra x thousand pounds. It wasn't as big as his win bonus, but the fact that it was in there at all was staggering. (Although I wonder whether it was a structure to facilitate some kind of tax avoidance versus having a higher "basic" salary. Still, an effing lose bonus!)

[pedro]

Still, an effing lose bonus!

That's what the England team is on then..

[beninho]

Just think how many Mourinho could sack and then replace with players who have Jorge Mendes as their agent!

[beninho]

So, 50m settlement for Brexit, does anyone think this is a good thing?

[JAS]

So, 50m settlement for Brexit, does anyone think this is a good thing?

Brexit or the settlement amount or the publishing/leaking of the negotiating position...
or all of the above??

[pedro]

So, 50m settlement for Brexit, does anyone think this is a good thing?

50m is defo better than 50bn.

[McLaren]

Jas 

Why call it a leak? Shouldn't all the negotiations be open to public scrutiny?

[beninho]

So, 50m settlement for Brexit, does anyone think this is a good thing?

50m is defo better than 50bn.

yes it is! typo by me.

[beninho]

I was never for Brexit, but could see a bit why some people where. Now it just looks like a massive clusterfk, and will ruin the country for years. I dont even know if it will happen at all.

[JAS]

Jas 

Why call it a leak? Shouldn't all the negotiations be open to public scrutiny?

The current shower in power don’t really do public scrutiny Mac, haven’t you noticed??

[McLaren]

Just weird that people are worried about giving away info to the people who know all about our trade situation and have been negotiating our trade deals for decades. The EU are probably more clued up about us than the idiots in charge of #Brexit.

[McLaren]

Basically you can't call something a leak which is already common knowledge.

[JAS]

Re Brexit, I used consider myself quite pro EU (better together etc) but since the Greek crisis I started look a bit deeper and really, I don’t think the EU is what it touts itself to be indeed it’s probably the opposite. For all it’s claims about looking after it’s citizens etc etc hogwash...it’s all about corrupt corporate protectionism. If it was really all about it’s citizens and it worked properly, it would either have averted the 2008 banking crisis or it would by now have identified the culpable and sent them to jail. On every crisis that comes alive no it seems completely ineffectual (Banking, terrorism, Catalan separation, Greek bail out, aggressive tax avoidance, mass immigration). All of those are real problems that EU citizens have to deal with the consequences of. What has the EU done collectively on any of those?? It’s an ineffectual money sucking parasite. I’m not saying it shouldn’t exist in some form with some useful agenda but it needs to be drastically different from what it is now. It’s doomed in its current form and painful though it may be in the short term we’re actually doing the right thing in bailing. Cameron tried to ask for reforms (ok weakly) and was arrogantly brushed aside. Brexit was the result.

[pedro]

A bit like a marriage. If members don't want to give and only want to take, it won't work. You cannot have free trade, free movement of labour, open borders etc. without also harmonizing national tax and welfare systems, monetary policies, immigration, legal systems etc.

A lot of people complain over the lack of democracy in EU decision making, but still don't want to give more power to the EU parliament, or even work towards a federation. It's a bit of game of give and take. The globalised world / Europe is here to stay. We better find a way to make it work. Personally I see a federation inevitable, be it 10, 20 or 50 years, I don't know.

[McLaren]

Pedro 

What is going on with your marriage!

[Mad for Chelsea]

The obsession with leaks has nothing to do with wanting to keep our negotiating position a secret from the EU, and everything to do with not wanting to let the public know that the wild and impossible promises of the Leave campaign are just that, wild and impossible.

I really wish the term "Brexit bill" could be consigned to the dustbin of history, as it's completely inaccurate. It's a settling of our accounts, i.e. agreeing to pay what we'd committed to. Equally, it's annoying to hear Remainers go "we could save 50b by not leaving" since it's money we would pay either way (though at least if we remained we'd get something out of it in return).

There seems to be this weird view, pushed today by Farage and IDS (and by plenty of others in the past) that this "bill" is in return for (hopefully) a trade deal. While not quite nonsense, it's more complicated than that. In order to move on to trade talks, three areas have first to be agreed: the "bill", the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, and the Northern Irish border question.

The latest offer will probably settle the first question, and I expect the UK to quite soon settle the second by giving in over ECJ jurisdiction (seems to be the only serious sticking point, possibly along with not charging fees for permanent residence). F#cked if I know what to do about Northern Ireland though*, and with the government needing the DUP votes it's a rather messy situation.

*Well, a Norway/Switzerland type agreement would take care of it easily enough, but that would entail freedom of movement and being bound by EU regulations, so would probably be unacceptable to the nutters.

So overall, I'm pleased the UK has agreed to honouring their commitments, and it's a positive step towards moving onto the next phase of talks about the future relationship (and thus a tiny step away from the abyss of crashing out with no deal). Still much work to be done though.

[pedro]

It's going very well, thanks, because I invest myself in it. And you mac? Still looking for someone like your mum?

[McLaren]

I get that he could have made the death a bit quicker but is there anything wrong with eating a dog if you want to?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42163209

[pedro]

"Barbaric"? Should he have shot it instead? We kill animals all the time. It had a smoother death than had it been halal slaughtered.

[Diggers]

Re footballers and trying/not trying. I'm not really sure why people choose to judge them by a certain set of standards that I very much doubt they hold themselves accountable to. For example the "losing the dressing room" theory that leads to a manager going. Are you seriously telling met hat everyone ion other jobs quite merrily goes about their business even if they feel their boss is incompetent or an utter kumquat. That would be utter BS, of course people bitch and moan and indeed agitate, I have never, ever worked in a place that didn't at some point have a bad atmosphere or cliques of people slating over people.
Why on earth should footballers be any difference, money is irrelevant. They have it so are just accepting of it. There is no point telling a rich person to appreciate their wealth, it's already a constant in their lives so basically they, just like any of us, are driven by emotion.
Also as Super keeps banging on and on (ad nauseam) about, it's not as if they are a particularly articulate or well educated bunch.
It's the same with daily effort, I'm sure we all turn up every single day and think I absolutely must give 100% today, anything less would be a travesty. Yeah right. But apparently nothing less is expected of a footballer, not seen to be playing well is instantly poor.
I'm as guilty as anyone, but lets face it, it smacks of hypocrisy.

[Diggers]

Re the divorce payment, I love the fact that all of a sudden we are talking about the current net contribution of 8-10 billion , depending who you listen to, as a justification for the divorce fee. This is being presented as an ongoing cost (which it obviously is) whilst completely ignoring the massive revenue generated by this net contribution through the very trade mechanisms we are going to be ditching.
You couldn't make it up.

[pedro]

There's no rational thinking behind it Digs, it's purely emotions.

[Diggers]

It's bollox Pedro. I was chatting to a guy last week who works as a negotiator for HMRC. He confirmed what I have always thought to be obvious, good negotiation in a complex situation starts with building good will and is utterly dependent on maintaining that good will (why else would ACAS exist), it has nothing to do with posturing or pathetic shows of strength, which are completely unsubstantiated.

[McLaren]

Diggers

I have read Trumps "Art of the Deal", you could not be more wrong.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Re the divorce payment, I love the fact that all of a sudden we are talking about the current net contribution of 8-10 billion , depending who you listen to, as a justification for the divorce fee. This is being presented as an ongoing cost (which it obviously is) whilst completely ignoring the massive revenue generated by this net contribution through the very trade mechanisms we are going to be ditching.
You couldn't make it up.

I agree. My point though was that this settlement is inevitable, whether we want a deal or not. Past commitments need to be honoured, and that's all this is. The remainers should focus their attack on the fact that we will be paying this money and getting nothing in return, rather than the considerable benefits we previously enjoyed, as you point out. I have seen however some say that we could "save" the money if we didn't leave, which is incorrect.

I see that Barnier calling Brexit a selfish decision has apparently upset the UK government. Clearly telling the EU to "go whistle" and "sod off" is perfectly acceptable from their part though (and indeed some rather nasty comments that Ian Paisley made about Ireland this morning)...

[McLaren]

For any science fans on here this is pretty cool.

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/cc/royal-society-journal-collection-highlights

Highlights from the newly digitised royal society archive.

[Diggers]

Re the divorce payment, I love the fact that all of a sudden we are talking about the current net contribution of 8-10 billion , depending who you listen to, as a justification for the divorce fee. This is being presented as an ongoing cost (which it obviously is) whilst completely ignoring the massive revenue generated by this net contribution through the very trade mechanisms we are going to be ditching.
You couldn't make it up.

I agree. My point though was that this settlement is inevitable, whether we want a deal or not. Past commitments need to be honoured, and that's all this is. The remainers should focus their attack on the fact that we will be paying this money and getting nothing in return, rather than the considerable benefits we previously enjoyed, as you point out. I have seen however some say that we could "save" the money if we didn't leave, which is incorrect.

I see that Barnier calling Brexit a selfish decision has apparently upset the UK government. Clearly telling the EU to "go whistle" and "sod off" is perfectly acceptable from their part though (and indeed some rather nasty comments that Ian Paisley made about Ireland this morning)...

Don't disagree. I do feel though that by and large it's ardent leavers (the John Redwoods of this world) who are more upset about the divorce bill and genuinely feel we don't need to pay it. For sure both Labour and remainers will have a pop about it, but that's from the basis it was always going to happen and May and Davis have made a meal of it, rather than it shouldn't be paid.

[super_realist]

Re footballers and trying/not trying. I'm not really sure why people choose to judge them by a certain set of standards that I very much doubt they hold themselves accountable to. For example the "losing the dressing room" theory that leads to a manager going. Are you seriously telling met hat everyone ion other jobs quite merrily goes about their business even if they feel their boss is incompetent or an utter kumquat. That would be utter BS, of course people bitch and moan and indeed agitate, I have never, ever worked in a place that didn't at some point have a bad atmosphere or cliques of people slating over people.
Why on earth should footballers be any difference, money is irrelevant. They have it so are just accepting of it. There is no point telling a rich person to appreciate their wealth, it's already a constant in their lives so basically they, just like any of us, are driven by emotion.
Also as Super keeps banging on and on (ad nauseam) about, it's not as if they are a particularly articulate or well educated bunch.
It's the same with daily effort, I'm sure we all turn up every single day and think I absolutely must give 100% today, anything less would be a travesty. Yeah right. But apparently nothing less is expected of a footballer, not seen to be playing well is instantly poor.
I'm as guilty as anyone, but lets face it, it smacks of hypocrisy.

As usual, you're missing the point. At no point am I saying anyone has to give 100% in anything they do.

At my work, as I'm sure you do at yours, you have to meet certain standards. That doesn't mean that you have to give 100% every time and no decent workplace would expect you to work at such levels, because for most people, the job they are in is one which they are qualified to do and one which is well within their abilities. Therefore, you can probably do your job to the level required by not having to knock your pan in.

Similarly, in sport there's a lot of events where a team or player can coast through a game, but when that performance level dips and is causing damage to the team, or their effort is no longer sufficient to meet the standards expected why just sack the manager? Why not take action against the player ( or at least those most responsible too? )

Tennis players like Krygios and the other deplorable Aussie player Tomic have been getting big fines and bans for not putting in sufficient effort. If you're an Everton fan for instance, or even an England fan how are their players meeting expectations?
Why for example does nothing happen to England players for stinking out every tournament and not being able to replicate their club form?

[super_realist]

I get that he could have made the death a bit quicker but is there anything wrong with eating a dog if you want to?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42163209

I don't think there's anything wrong with eating dog Mac, although the circumstances around this aren't great as it's someone's pet.

It's just an animal though. If I was in Korea, I'd try it. No different to eating beef or pork.

On the note another person mentioned, I'm not sure why we in Britain have this creeping Halal culture of how animals are killed. I'd rather they were killed in a more humane way than in a way which appeases some backward carpet sniffers.

[McLaren]

Super

Are you now a little touchy about the position you have in the workplace? You have spent days defending a ludicrous claim about sacking footballers and fail to explain why your current job is so w**k that you have no internet access?

[Sponsored content]