marshy

10 minutes ago, bearded_red said:

Hi Nigel, Steve Lansdown here, just wondered if you'd be interested in the vacancy we currently have?

Ok, slight heads up, we have an uninterested, unmotivated and unfit squad which is currently suffering a quite preposterous injury crisis. Eleven players are out of contract and leaving at the end of the season as we desperately need to reduce both the size of our squad and wage bill. We are currently on a run of losing seven straight games (and twelve of the last fifteen). After the game on Saturday one of our caretaker managers basically pleaded for help as soon as possible and made it clear he had no idea how we would get out of this slump. Our captain and record transfer fee was holding back tears while telling the media that he had never played in a team like this and admitted that every game we spend ninety minutes desperately defending and trying to keep the score down.

Fortunately we only need a two or three wins to see us safe this season so we would like you to achieve them as quickly as you possibly can. Should we stay up we would be interested in offering you a three year deal. We have to be honest and say that the first two of those years we will be operating under austerity measures due to the threat of points deductions and transfer embargoes for failing FFP, the squad will have to be small and we will have to rely on young unproven players from the academy. It goes without saying that we cannot get relegated as the financial issues we have would be massively exaggerated should we end up playing League 1 football. After these two seasons are up and all contracts from our previous big spending have came to an end you will have an opportunity to start looking forwards and targeting competing for playoff places.

Its not all bad though, you will be 'inheriting' a 17 year old that hasn't played a minute of professional football and a 21 year old forward that hasn't scored a goal in 43 Championship appearances. If you could provide the opportunities, coaching and guidance that help turn these two into assets we can sell to the Premier League for around 35 million that would really help our current financial plight.

Should you achieve all these things while building a spirited, professional and committed squad, we will thankyou for your efforts by firing you as soon as we (wrongly) believe we have an excuse and someone on our most used fans forum will call you a failure.

Spot on. Very well said. 

It could work with Curtis at the helm if they brought in Nigel Pearson as his Assistant.

The odds to be looking at are those for relegation. 15/1 to small stakes on Betfair seems reasonable value to me. 

Absolutely devastated by this sacking and a lot of the players will be too.

Good God, the snake looks nervous.

10 minutes ago, Coppello said:

On loan at Rotherham.

HT Leeds v Rotherham 0-0 : Ayling RB for Leeds, Vyner RB for Rotherham.

Good points. Even when winning the manager should obviously be looking at ways to improve. I remember the famous Ferguson rant a while back after Aberdeen had actually won the Cup.

Great first half, poor second to sum up. You pinpoint it exactly, mental and physical reasons. Physically it is a question of fitness, as you state, and the use of substitutes. Mentally, concentration yes...often goes when you're knackered, but also the worrying way we tend to not exercise control when ahead. To use Pack as an example, there were numerous times in the second half when Forest were building up a head of steam when he had the opportunity and plenty of time to bring the ball down and make a simple pass but instead chose to kick or head upfield as far as poss, give back possession and invite pressure.

Great win though.

Sprake is correct Woodsy.

Sprake is also the only one, as far as I know, who managed to throw the ball into his own net for an O.G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great work fellas - these school yard histrionics have certainly given me a giggle!

 

He started it.

It's called irony chaps, it's often used to emphasise a point.

I guess if your best argument against good law is that in some dystopian fantasy future there might be bad law that'll do for me.

The important thing is that we make progress.

I'll let you have the last word. I'm sure that's what you want.

So now you're misquoting me and ducking the point completely?

 

I said worrying about which side of imaginary lines on a map laws were made was stupid and it was more important that they were good.

 

You said mumble mumble russian war across europe conscription bullshit mumble.

 

Do you have an opinion on the specific article I linked yet?  

The expression 'taste of one's own medicine' springs to mind.

I'm sure you understood the point about good and bad law I was trying to make using a hypothetical example but you chose to ignore it and twist it around to further your own point-scoring agenda.

 

 

 

You're countering a point made by using an actual real thing happening with something that ranges from improbable theory to impossible fantasy, so it doesn't stand up well, that's not surprising is it?

Be practical, concern yourself with reality not airy fairy abstracts that don't exist and imaginary situations that can't come to pass.

 

 

 

Coming from someone who tells us that we should '' ignore imaginary lines drawn on a map'' this advice is laughable.

1).It's not a hypothetical example though, it's an impossible one.  

 

2).You have no more control over law made in the UK than you do over law made in the EU so the quality of that law is far more important than the illusion of control.

 

3).All this guff about allegiance to lines on a map and hyperbole is just typical little Englander nonsense.  

 

4).Be practical, concern yourself with reality not airy fairy abstracts that don't exist and imaginary situations that can't come to pass.

1).The very nature of a hypothetical argument is that it can be either possible or impossible. The argument exists to make a point, the point being on this occasion that 'good' or 'bad' law is often a matter of opinion depending on who passed it and who benefits from it. You appear to wish to be the sole arbiter of whether a law is good or bad.

2).Your statement is quite obviously nonsense. There is a democratic deficit within the EU, even Merkel has acknowledged that point.

3). Very John Lennon. 'Little Englander' is the latest line of abuse to be hurled at Farage and UKIP. Personally I think his point of view is the exact opposite as he constantly makes the point that we should be endeavouring to widen our links with trading partners globally. However, people I'm afraid will only hear what they want to hear. The EU appears to be very concerned with lines on the map as they try to expand their sphere of influence. Personally I would support the principle of self-determination and offer any people a referendum where there is an obvious interest. Catalonia and eastern Ukraine are two regions that spring to mind. Unfortunately the EU is too concerned with the current 'lines on the map' as you put it.

4). Thank you for your advice. I shall endeavour to ignore it. Refer back to Point 1).

So you accept my point that it was well before the bank bailout and entirely unconnected.

 

Your man Gideon certainly knows a thing about bad decisions - he takes them constantly - but nothing can perhaps match the bad decision to sell off 100% of Britain's utilities and railways between 1982 and 1996. 

Well I can accept the fact that most of it was sold before the bail out  but who knows precisely how much was held back for the bail out. Perhaps it had all been wasted on enlarging the public sector.

Osborne, not my 'mate' by the way, I've never voted for them, may be taking some bad decisions but somehow he is still ensuring that UK growth is once again the fastest in the G7, figures published today. As far as I know he has never had the arrogance to claim, unlike Brown, that he has the ability to 'put an end to boom and bust'.

The decision to sell off the utilities of course may have been a bad thing, that is your opinion. I would argue that they were an albatross around the country's neck. Held to ransom by militant unions.

I'm off to France at the end of the month to see how things are going over there. I will be travelling around by train. Apparently I have to thank the French taxpayer for subsidising my travelling expenses to the tune of 72% of the fare.

I guess whether I'm alive or not will depend on whether I'm conscripted to fight the Russians in 10 years time! I appreciate you were simply postulating a scenario, I was just trying to demonstrate that a hell of a lot would have to happen (including treaty changes and probable referendums in various EU countries) before an EU military could even be considered. Despite my support of EU membership, if I was asked whether we should stay in the EU if it meant signing up to an EU Military force, I'd probably (reluctantly in the wider picture) vote No

One other thing I do agree with Nibor on is that it doesn't really matter to me at the minute who makes the laws, I feel no more connected to Westminster than I do Brussels. Perhaps if someone or something can make me feel part of the social and political machinations of this country again, I may feel differently about EU legislation

Well I think that if the EU moves towards ever closer political union then an EU army is inevitable. It's well worth googling EU Army/Military Force and looking at the support for this that already exists.

Alienation eh, a terrible thing. Just make sure you don't go out and do something you might regret.

But the EU doesn't currently have the power to conscript and, perhaps more importantly, doesn't have its own army. There isn't even a binding agreement for an EU military policy, as demonstrated in differing attitudes to Syria and Libya across the big players in the EU. So unless there's significant change in the current EU make up, your hypothetical example is impossible

Doesn't 'currently'. 'Embryonic army'. I said 'ten years time'. It was a hypothetical example to highlight the contradictions inherent in the concept raised by Nibor of 'good' and 'bad' law...which in the example given is a matter of opinion. I won't be alive in 30 years' time, you probably will be. If the totalitarian European superstate is at permanent war with Eastasia as in Orwell's nightmare vision in 1984 don't say you weren't warned.

Small is beautiful.

I think you have made a spurious link between the Greeks joining the Euro and their sovereign debt crisis. The Greek Ministry of Finance suggested 5 major causes for the economic problems of 2009:

 

• Lower than expected GDP growth
• Huge fiscal imbalances developed during the years from 2004 to 2009
• Enormous government debt
• Lack of budget compliance
• Lack of statistical credibility (i.e. the government was 'fanciful' in its predictions)

Add to that a level of corruption and tax evasion that led to the Greek government collecting about half the expected revenues, it is unsurprising that they fell in to some financial difficulty.

 

However, none of this can be attributed to membership of the EU or the Euro.

 

Furthermore, the modern Drachma was first used in 1832, shortly after the establishment of the Greek state. It was devalued twice (1928 and 1944) due to hyperinflation. The original Drachma of ancient Greece went out of use about 2000 years ago and was replaced by Roman coinage.

 

Finally, is it possible for you to write a post without all the rubbish. It is truly tedious to read your description of Blair or the EU each and every time you have thought?

Just to comment on one of your points although they are to a large extent interconnected and certainly connected to membership of the Eurozone.

Greece is in a huge deflationary spiral with massive levels of unemployment and youth unemployment in particular. Economic policy has been largely taken out of their own hands, it is in effect a puppet government.

They are being forced by the Troika to follow an austerity programme. This is deflationary in itself but when combined with euro membership in which they are saddled with a hugely overvalued currency the result is catastrophic. Sure their government made mistakes, year upon year of Socialist governments and massive overspending, that is undeniable but EU/euro membership is not giving them the tools they need to extricate themselves from their current plight.

If there are any, and I doubt it, they will be far better than giving telcos who pretty much have a monopoly a means of making you pay them for everything twice without being able to blame them for it.

 

Let's face it, it doesn't matter who makes the law when it's good law.  Nor does it matter who makes the law when it's bad law. 

 

I've seen lots of sandy vaginas from people who seem to think it's important that it's our bunch of useless cretins who make laws - it isn't.  It's just important that we get good laws.

'Sandy vaginas'...I had to look that one up. I have to say that I disagree completely and fundamentally with your post.

Just to give a hypothetical example. Imagine that the current crisis in the Ukraine blows over but the pro-Russia group in the east keeps up the pressure to such an extent that in ten years time Russia decides to act. By this time the embryonic EU army is much bigger and an EU law is passed ordering EU-wide national conscription to fight the Russian peril (who knows which unelected totalitarian monster might be heading up the EU by this time). Now there are some who would consider this to be 'good law', you might be amongst them. There might be others like myself who owe no allegiance to the EU flag who might think this to be thoroughly 'bad law'. Good and bad in this instance is largely a matter of opinion. Of course if we were a self-governing democracy then 'bad law' can easily be overturned by the next elected government if the electorate so wishes. I simply cannot understand why so many people are prepared to see the ability to make our own law handed over to a foreign power.

More good work by the EU ensuring consumers don't pay twice for the internet and scrapping roaming fees...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869

I think we should watch and wait for the law of unintended consequences to come into effect.

As I pointed out, the gold stocks were halved in 1999, nine years before any bank needed to be bailed out.

 

There is a lot you can criticise Brown for, but I'm not sure the bail outs are one. What would you do as Chancellor? Let the country's financial institutions collapse like dominos because some banks had put large amounts into hopelessly overstretched US mortgage providers.

 

I need hardly point out that the decision to intervene was supported by G.G. Osborne and the Tory front bench.

 

However I don't think you can call bankers "Labour's chums". Look at where there money goes:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector

Between 1999 and 2002 Gordon, Canute, ''I have put an end to boom and bust'' Brown sold off 60% of UK gold at rock bottom prices. George Osborne called it ''one of the worst decisions ever made by a British Chancellor.

I didn't see the first debate so purely judging on what I saw last night. My impressions were that Nick Clegg has probably spent too long in the company of Cameron as he seemed to constantly be making silly smug comments and digs, then looking around waiting to see people thinking how clever he is. I actually think Cameron speaks to him like this and now was just repeating it on Farage.

I know Clegg is a politician and I see how they behave in PM's questions, which I like for it's playground humour, but I expected better from Clegg, more dignity. That bit about WG Grace was embarrassing and cringeworthy. And all those references to things being 'dangerous'.

I think all Farage has to do is stay calm and yes stand up for himself but don't get dragged into the playground bully tactics and he will take votes.

The first debate could be likened to two boxers weighing each other up in an opening round. Once Farage realised what a lieing, hectoring, smug, self-serving snake he was up against he changed tack accordingly, came out for the second round, and delivered the knock-out blow. Dignity, from Clegg, you will be waiting a long, long time. It says a lot that, after Blair, people could be fooled again and a man like this can rise to the position of Deputy Prime Minister.

The answer to the question, 'How do you see the EU in ten years time ?'' was instructive. Clegg, 'pretty much the same as it is today'. Well 50% youth unemployment in Spain, for instance, and correspondingly high figures elsewhere. Demonstrations in 53 cities in Spain yesterday and a huge one planned in Brussels tomorrow(AFP). Is that where we want to be in ten years time? People were alarmed and critical of Farage's mention of the far right party in Greece but he was simply stating the truth. The National Front is making huge gains in France. You have to be blind not to see what is developing, or perhaps people simply do not wish to see it. Increasingly people have had enough of these tyrannical despots in Brussels and wish to reinstate their self-governing democracies.

I see the EU are banning mobile phone roaming charges from next year - great news for people like me who nip over to Europe a fair bit.

 

I heard Farage the other day say "don't worry, leaving the EU won't mean you won't be able to buy your Mercedes and Champagne from Europe" - sums the bloke up perfectly and who he's appealing to.

I detect a note of humour in his comment about Mercedes and Champagne. If you think that sums him up I respectfully suggest that you haven't been listening carefully enough.

With regard to banning mobile roaming charges this is another example of the EU getting involved in distorting the market. It may be great for people like yourself who travel a lot but the companies will compensate by increasing charges elsewhere. This means of course that those who prefer not to travel or don't have the means to travel much will end subsidising those who do.

Another example is the decision to stop the insurance companies giving lower rates to young women drivers as opposed to young men despite the fact that all the evidence from statistics gathered over the years indicates that young men have far more accidents.