Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:25 pm

Actually Davie, they didn't fit yours (apologies; 'idiocy' is a bit strong). Your earlier comments were all about how he'd actually done something terrible/illegal i.e. told them how to get around 3rd party ownership (he didn't) with the possible implication that he'd been knowingly involved in it (no evidence of this), took £400k for dodgy seminars (he didn't and he said he'd have to clear it with the FA) etc. You wanted him to be a crook from the off.
You also claimed Ben and I said he was 'innocent' - we said no such thing.

You never took S_R's approach re. his position being untenable because he was England manager, the one thing he probably falls foul of. His comments re. Hodgson/Nevile were unfortunate, but this was a private conversation and, actually, big deal. Seriously, the next poor schmuck who takes this on should treat the media as they deserve.

There may well be more to this - we'll see. Until then, the only thing he's 'guilty' of is putting himself in a stupid position cf. the FA's comments re. FIFA etc and forcing the FA to ask him to fall on his sword. S_R's right with this; the FA had little choice really.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:29 pm

raycastleunited wrote:Telegraph team must have had a grudge / agenda against BFS. This kind of operation took a while to co-ordinate, I imagine they had a brain storming session to develop ideas to force him out on the day he was was appointed.

This is one of the issues that really sticks in the throat. They were setting him up from the off. OK, maybe he was worryingly naive given his experience, but unless there's a lot more to come and it's much more damning, I think those journalists are the worst kind of winkers going.

by Davie Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:40 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:Actually Davie, they didn't fit yours (apologies; 'idiocy' is a bit strong). Your earlier comments were all about how he'd actually done something terrible/illegal i.e. told them how to get around 3rd party ownership (he didn't) with the possible implication that he'd been knowingly involved in it (no evidence of this), took £400k for dodgy seminars (he didn't and he said he'd have to clear it with the FA) etc. You wanted him to be a crook from the off.

Actually now YOU are trying to make the facts fit your preconceptions (and failing)

Never once did I mention the £400k for seminars - far less dodgy ones. I deliberately left that out because the articles I read also mentioned that he'd said he would have to run that past the FA (even though the headlines failed to mention that). I'd have no issue with his taking a £400k jolly to Singapore if the FA agreed it.

He DID however discuss ways to get around the 3rd party ownership, even if there was no implication he'd been knowingly involved with it. I DO think it's wrong he make the comments about "Woy" and GN - and even though it may not be the crime of the century, it all adds up.

I never WANTED him to be a crook from the off - I merely suspected it

by pedro Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:47 pm

England manager is the highest profile job in the UK next to the PM. It is very reasonable to expect you’re whiter than white and that the press will go after even the smallest thing. If any doubt whatsoever can be raised over dealings or decisions outside your day job you should refrain from it, regardless of whether it’s legal, ethical or you received permission from the FA or your wife. England manager is a de facto public job and the holder should view it as so. And in moments of weakness you should remember to look at your paycheck.

Sam is out. Now let's at least have someone who doesn't look like a drunk. Then chances are he won't behave as one.

by JAS Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:56 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
JAS wrote:What a circus!! This is the downside of so much money being involved in football. Where there is excess money there will be corruption born out of greed. To me that is a very very simple equation.

It may not sound or even be the crime of the century but when your employers are mounting a crusade against the corruption and shady dealings by governing bodies (FIFA & UEFA) then high profile key employees must be seen to be whiter than white. Unfortunately big Sam (and quite a few others) have been steeped in the kind of activity that has led to his downfall for so long that it would feel fairly normal behaviour. That therefore also makes his judgement questionable.

As for the Telegraph (this time) and the rest of the press, you have to ask what their agenda is....they bleat and bleat when England don't do as well as their ridiculously high expectations while at the same time they continually try undermine every single manager that has taken the poison chalice. I find that quite bizarre but incredibly amusing....long may it continue, who's next??
Agree 100% with this, especially the last paragraph. They must have set out, as soon as it was confirmed Allardyce got the gig, to trap him. Pretty sh!tty behaviour. In any case, they don't give a XXXX for England football, as long as what they do sells papers.
I don't know who'd take the job now and, if they did, why they'd agree to any contract that said they had to say anything to any press. Maybe with the possible exception of announcing a squad/team.
As for candidates, Pardew maybe?

Re. Allardyce and this £400k, there's a lot of talk about this being 'grubby' given his salary but why wouldn't he consider it? £400k for, what? Four talks? And only after/if he cleared it with the FA? Those saying this is 'grubby' or 'greedy' are over-reacting.

I do wonder if the way forward for the FA is to get the press (YES the press!!) to come up with the shortlist, with the only stipulation being they will only come up with candidates that they will contractually agree not to witch hunt from the moment he is appointed.

by beninho Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:15 pm

Can anyone disagree with any of these statements :
On why Roy Hodgson, former England manager, would not be a good public speaker:

“He’d send them all to sleep, Roy. Woy. He hasn’t got the personality for it.”

On where Roy Hodgson went wrong as England manager:

“Players let him down in the end. I think maybe he, he was too indecisive. Cast a bit of an anxiety over to the players maybe. I mean prior to the Iceland game, he won all 10 qualifiers. We'd drawn with Russia, we should have won. We beat Wales, and that was our worst performance. We drew with Slovakia, and we only had to draw with Iceland to get through ... he just collapsed.”

On Gary Neville, former assistant manager England manager, advising Hodgson on the decision to substitute on Marcus Rashford during the match against Iceland in the Euros:

“They were arguing for 10 minutes about bringing him on, him and Gary Neville. So Gary was the wrong influence for him. ----ing tell Gary to sit down and shut up, so you can do what you want. You’re the manager, you do what you want, not what they anyone else”

On the chances of footballers playing for England:

"Can’t play them then. Joe Hart. Jack Wilshere, on the bench for Arsenal. Oxlade-Chamberlain on the bench. You can play them, but they’re not playing for the club. When they’re not playing for the club, they’re just short of match practice.”

On Wembley Stadium:

“They [the FA] stupidly spent £870 million on Wembley, so they’re still paying that debt off. They completely rebuilt it. If they’d built it anywhere else, it would have cost about £400 million. They completely floored it and then rebuilt the new stadium which is fabulous, but that sort of debt is not really what you want. Most of the money the FA make[s] will go to the interest on the debt.”

On the gambling habits of current or former senior England players:

"[A club owner] bailed [a player] out twice. That’s players for you, dealing with the boredom, see. It were worse in our time … we gambled more in our time than they do now. We played cards, played cards all the way back [from away matches] … you’d do your wages in.”

On the Football Association:

“They’re all about making money aren’t they? You know the FA’s the richest football association in the world? Well, I shouldn’t say that. They’re not the richest at all. What they do is they have the biggest turnover in the world with £325 million.”

On the Duke of Cambridge failing to appear at the launch of the Euro 2020 football tournament:

“The only one that never turned up was Prince William. He’s our ambassador for the Football Association, so it would have been nice if he’d have turned up but he obviously had more, much busier things on.”

On Prince Harry:

“Harry’s a naughty boy. He’s a very naughty boy, very naughty. He shows his bottom and all sorts.”

by McLaren Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:21 pm

Do his actions need to be illegal/shady in footballing or general terms for Sam to get the sack?

Can't he just get the sack for not being very good at his job. We all have a set of minimum competencies we have to meet in the workplace or we face some sort of consequence, potentially the sack.

As manager of the national football team is it too much to expect that you don't run your mouth of about ways to circumvent the system to strangers? No it isn't, and Sam has lost his job because he just isn't very good at being a figurehead for a large organisation.

We need only to have a look at Ben's last post to see he did not have the diplomacy skills to do his job properly.

by beninho Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:22 pm

Allardyce told undercover reporters that the banned practice was still possible in “all of South America, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, all of Africa” and that the Ecuadorean player Enner Valencia had been under a third party ownership agreement when he signed him for £12 million for West Ham from a Mexican club in 2014.

The third party ownership arrangement ended on the transfer and West Ham acquired the player “whole”. Asked if it would be a problem to get involved in third party ownership. Allardyce said: “It’s not a problem.”

Third party ownership involves an agent or an investor owning part of the financial rights to a player, meaning transfer fees are partly paid to them when a player moves clubs, rather than the buying club paying all the money to the selling club.

During a meeting at a London hotel in August, Allardyce, who was appointed by the FA on July 22, was happy to discuss third party ownership of players with two undercover reporters posing as representatives of a Far East-based company looking to get a foothold in the lucrative world of English football.

He attended the meeting with his agent, Mark Curtis, and his financial adviser, Shane Moloney, after being approached via the football agent Scott McGarvey, a long-time friend of Allardyce who was unaware of the undercover reporters’ involvement.

Mr Moloney asked Allardyce: “What do you think they’re doing on the football transfers financing?… the thing they’re talking about is funding football transfers.”

Mr Curtis interjected: “Is that third party ownership a problem though?”

Allardyce replied: “It’s not a problem… we got Valencia in. He was third party owned when we bought him from Mexico.” Mr Moloney made it clear that the ownership arrangement ended with the transfer.

Allardyce also gave advice on where third party ownership was still possible, despite the worldwide Fifa ban.

This is the 3rd Party info from the Telegraph column, I still do not see a massive issue with what he has said.

I can see why he was sacked, though you appoint Sam Allardyce he talks like Sam Allardyce and you then sack him for it!

by beninho Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:23 pm

McLaren wrote:Do his actions need to be illegal/shady in footballing or general terms for Sam to get the sack?

Can't he just get the sack for not being very good at his job. We all have a set of minimum competencies we have to meet in the workplace or we face some sort of consequence, potentially the sack.

As manager of the national football team is it too much to expect that you don't run your mouth of about ways to circumvent the system to strangers? No it isn't, and Sam has lost his job because he just isn't very good at being a figurehead for a large organisation.

We need only to have a look at Ben's last post to see he did not have the diplomacy skills to do his job properly.

You shouldn't sack people for saying things that people may not like in a private conversation. Thats a court case waiting to happen.

by MontysMerkin Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:37 pm

pedro wrote:England manager is the highest profile job in the UK next to the PM. It is very reasonable to expect you’re whiter than white and that the press will go after even the smallest thing.

Turns out the last (few) PM(s) was/were a right dodgy c*nt(s) as well. So no big surprise.

by JAS Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:02 pm

beninho wrote:
McLaren wrote:Do his actions need to be illegal/shady in footballing or general terms for Sam to get the sack?

Can't he just get the sack for not being very good at his job. We all have a set of minimum competencies we have to meet in the workplace or we face some sort of consequence, potentially the sack.

As manager of the national football team is it too much to expect that you don't run your mouth of about ways to circumvent the system to strangers? No it isn't, and Sam has lost his job because he just isn't very good at being a figurehead for a large organisation.

We need only to have a look at Ben's last post to see he did not have the diplomacy skills to do his job properly.

You shouldn't sack people for saying things that people may not like in a private conversation. Thats a court case waiting to happen.

As I understand it he wasn't sacked, officially he resigned and it was accepted. Therefore he walked before he was pushed. It's probably the one honourable crumb in the whole saga. Not sure what that will mean in terms of severance pay. As technically he's walked he shouldn't be entitled to anything. I wonder if the FA have done a backhand deal for him to walk....oh the irony if that were the case!!

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:47 am

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:England manager is the highest profile job in the UK next to the PM. It is very reasonable to expect you’re whiter than white and that the press will go after even the smallest thing.
Turns out the last (few) PM(s) was/were a right dodgy c*nt(s) as well. So no big surprise.

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:51 am

beninho wrote:
McLaren wrote:Do his actions need to be illegal/shady in footballing or general terms for Sam to get the sack?

Can't he just get the sack for not being very good at his job. We all have a set of minimum competencies we have to meet in the workplace or we face some sort of consequence, potentially the sack.

As manager of the national football team is it too much to expect that you don't run your mouth of about ways to circumvent the system to strangers? No it isn't, and Sam has lost his job because he just isn't very good at being a figurehead for a large organisation.

We need only to have a look at Ben's last post to see he did not have the diplomacy skills to do his job properly.

You shouldn't sack people for saying things that people may not like in a private conversation. Thats a court case waiting to happen.

Yes, you should, we see it all the time. He's representing the FA, he HAS to uphold whatever standards they expect from him. If he doesn't, he's bringing them into disrepute, whether it's a private conversation or a tweet that got out of hand. He didn't live up to the standards expected of him, thus, jotters for Fat Stupid Sam

by raycastleunited Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:13 am

beninho wrote:
McLaren wrote:Do his actions need to be illegal/shady in footballing or general terms for Sam to get the sack?

Can't he just get the sack for not being very good at his job. We all have a set of minimum competencies we have to meet in the workplace or we face some sort of consequence, potentially the sack.

As manager of the national football team is it too much to expect that you don't run your mouth of about ways to circumvent the system to strangers? No it isn't, and Sam has lost his job because he just isn't very good at being a figurehead for a large organisation.

We need only to have a look at Ben's last post to see he did not have the diplomacy skills to do his job properly.

You shouldn't sack people for saying things that people may not like in a private conversation. Thats a court case waiting to happen.

Eh? It happens all the time. People constantly get sacked for privately expressing views which are not compatible with their employer. If you slag off your company in a drunken conversation down the pub and your boss overhears it then bye bye.

I sense a theme emerging from your posts Ben. Do you work in the public sector?

by beninho Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:27 am

Nothing wrong with working in the public sector!!!!

Suppose it all depends on whether your private conversation becomes public knowledge. Put it on facebook or twitter and face the consequences, make disparaging comments about your employers, make sure you do it with people you can trust!

by raycastleunited Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:52 am

beninho wrote:Nothing wrong with working in the public sector!!!!

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it Ben, but I'm right aren't I!

Don't take this the wrong way, but I could tell by the lower levels of expectation. There are many talented people who work in the public sector, but there is an endemic problem that the bar of achievement is set so low that continued poor performance and minimal effort is accepted.

by beninho Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:04 am

Yep I work in local authority housing, though ive mentioned it before. There are some awful people that work here, but also some people that are massively underpaid when you take into account the budgets and work force they manage. Ive spent more years in the private sector, but just stumbled in when the mortgage markets died in 2008/9. I would not say I have lower expectations, though I would say its harder and more scrutinised then a lot of jobs.

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:14 am

Everyones experience will be different. My local authority experience was a breeze, less stressful, less scrutinised but terrible money.

The thing that annoyed me most about local authority was how negative and self pitying the staff were, despite them all having the skills and experience to move outside that sector.
Perhaps it's a Scottish thing, as I generally find the English more positive, but I've never met as many moaners as I have in public sector especially when they could do something about it but didn't.

by beninho Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:20 am

I do find it frustrating just how "council" it is sometimes. When you have to follow proxedures instead of common sense. So many specialised jobs that are not transferable out of the council so people have to put up with cuts and no real payrise for years. Every couple of years we have consultations and job changes, job threats permanently hanging over your heads.

Im fricking gutted I missed the glory days of long lunches and flexi time.

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:32 am

There's definitely a persecution complex there. I wouldn't recommend anyone picking a career that would only end in local authority employment. Life's too short to put up with the nonsense there.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:30 pm

super_realist wrote:There's definitely a persecution complex there. I wouldn't recommend anyone picking a career that would only end in local authority employment. Life's too short to put up with the nonsense there.

But someone has to do it, don't they? Presumably, you don't want the dregs being the only people employed to do local state-sector work?

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:41 pm

What I mean Navy is that the people I used to work with were experienced Engineers, they could easily have moved into the Private sector, yet were happy to sit in the public sector and moan about how bad it was. Although I admit, that's a fairly Scottish attitude.

I would recommend anyone on a career path now, not to pick one where you were going to be stuck in Public sector, yes, someone's got to do it, but if you don't have to, you'll probably do a lot better in the Private sector.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:45 pm

super_realist wrote:What I mean Navy is that the people I used to work with were experienced Engineers, they could easily have moved into the Private sector, yet were happy to sit in the public sector and moan about how bad it was. Although I admit, that's a fairly Scottish attitude.

I would recommend anyone on a career path now, not to pick one where you were going to be stuck in Public sector, yes, someone's got to do it, but if you don't have to, you'll probably do a lot better in the Private sector.

Which is a problem. Pay peanuts and get monkeys (and those who're decent, but complain and maybe lose their motivation). Then everyone complains about the 'public sector', which is oh so fashionable. What a gag.

by super_realist Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:48 pm

But they aren't getting monkeys, in my experience they have people who are very well skilled (at least they were in Civil Engineering) yet, despite their obvious mobility, they just sit there and moan about it. They were just to much in a comfort zone, and it's a Scottish pastime to moan.

by MontysMerkin Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:03 am

I find it amazing that anyone thinks the private sector is any better!

by super_realist Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:06 am

MontysMerkin wrote:I find it amazing that anyone thinks the private sector is any better!

Better in a lot of ways in my experience in regards to things like bonuses, benefits, pensions, working for large, efficient, technically adept companies etc being better than public sector which is low paid, low pensions, low efficiency etc. You don't even have the job security in public sector anymore like you used to.

Depends on which Private company you work for I suppose.

by MontysMerkin Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:29 am

Tax payers can't pay bonuses - that only goes to those who (laughingly) add value. My mrs gets paid a huge amount of cash - she has to spend hours gluing receipts to pieces of A4 to post in for expenses. My mate works for a large bank - he tried to get a mortgage with his own company who lost his application 3 times. You are falling for the neoliberal myth that private companies are the last bastion of efficiency. I've worked in loads of different sectors and nurses are still the most hardworking people I have come across.

by super_realist Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:33 am

MontysMerkin wrote:Tax payers can't pay bonuses - that only goes to those who (laughingly) add value. My mrs gets paid a huge amount of cash - she has to spend hours gluing receipts to pieces of A4 to post in for expenses. My mate works for a large bank - he tried to get a mortgage with his own company who lost his application 3 times. You are falling for the neoliberal myth that private companies are the last bastion of efficiency. I've worked in loads of different sectors and nurses are still the most hardworking people I have come across.

Precisely, but it counters the argument that Private isn't better than Public if you include the extra things that can be gained from Private employment.
I'm not saying that Private are 100% efficient, but compared to the Public where they have no incentive to be efficient because they are non profit making then yes, Private is a lot better in my experience, not perfect, but better.

I didn't ever say that the public don't work as hard as private, I didn't say that, so I've not fallen into any sort of trap, all I said was that people in the public sector seem willing to wallow in their own misery rather too readily and I even added the caveat that it was in my experience. If you can't be bothered to read what I've written, please don't bother to reply.

by MontysMerkin Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:37 am

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Tax payers can't pay bonuses - that only goes to those who (laughingly) add value. My mrs gets paid a huge amount of cash - she has to spend hours gluing receipts to pieces of A4 to post in for expenses. My mate works for a large bank - he tried to get a mortgage with his own company who lost his application 3 times. You are falling for the neoliberal myth that private companies are the last bastion of efficiency. I've worked in loads of different sectors and nurses are still the most hardworking people I have come across.

Precisely, but it counters the argument that Private isn't better than Public if you include the extra things that can be gained from Private employment.
I'm not saying that Private are 100% efficient, but compared to the Public where they have no incentive to be efficient because they are non profit making then yes, Private is a lot better in my experience, not perfect, but better.

I didn't ever say that the public don't work as hard as private, I didn't say that, so I've not fallen into any sort of trap, all I said was that people in the public sector seem willing to wallow in their own misery rather too readily and I even added the caveat that it was in my experience. If you can't be bothered to read what I've written, please don't bother to reply.

Think you dropped your handbag.

by super_realist Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:38 am

Think you've dropped your glasses.

by westisbest Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:48 am

MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Tax payers can't pay bonuses - that only goes to those who (laughingly) add value. My mrs gets paid a huge amount of cash - she has to spend hours gluing receipts to pieces of A4 to post in for expenses. My mate works for a large bank - he tried to get a mortgage with his own company who lost his application 3 times. You are falling for the neoliberal myth that private companies are the last bastion of efficiency. I've worked in loads of different sectors and nurses are still the most hardworking people I have come across.

Precisely, but it counters the argument that Private isn't better than Public if you include the extra things that can be gained from Private employment.
I'm not saying that Private are 100% efficient, but compared to the Public where they have no incentive to be efficient because they are non profit making then yes, Private is a lot better in my experience, not perfect, but better.

I didn't ever say that the public don't work as hard as private, I didn't say that, so I've not fallen into any sort of trap, all I said was that people in the public sector seem willing to wallow in their own misery rather too readily and I even added the caveat that it was in my experience. If you can't be bothered to read what I've written, please don't bother to reply.
Think you dropped your handbag.

by kwinigolfer Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:33 pm

Swansea just booked their relegation to the Championship. Further proof, if any were needed, that US owners don't have a clue. And nor does Bradley. Ashley Williams escaped in the nick of time.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:02 am

Daft isn't it? Villa continue their lunacy I see - Di Matteo gone. Just what do they expect him to do in ~120 days, most of which was the Summer?

by kwinigolfer Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:17 am

It's OK navy, When I lived in Birmingham Villa were in the old Div 3; still saw Pele play there though!

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:44 am

kwinigolfer wrote:It's OK navy, When I lived in Birmingham Villa were in the old Div 3; still saw Pele play there though!

Ah, OK. That must be Villa's plan then. Should get to that division by the end of this season. Shame Pelé has retired though...

by westisbest Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:51 am

IF we had stuck with RDM we may have been heading for 3rd division football.

Wrong appointment in the first place.
I couldn't see things changing if he had stayed.
Picking wrong players, sitting back on 1-0 leads, inviting the opposition to come and attack.

Possibly a bit soon for him to go, but it's a results business and 1 win in 12 is terrible, especially as we have a decent squad for the championship.

Players need to look at themselves to.

We have been unlucky in some games and could well have been higher up the table.
The way it goes at times.

Onto the next manager then.

Bruce wouldn't be a bad choice, given he knows how to get out of this league.

by JAS Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:35 am

That just about sums up everything that is wrong with football these days (well ok not everything, there no evidence RDM took bungs!!). Yes it is a results business but 12 games is hardly enough time to fashion a silk purse out of a pigs ear. For Jesus Christ maybe but for a mere Champions League winner its a big ask.

by raycastleunited Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:12 pm

Did you guys get an invitation to invest in the golfbreaks bond? Pays 7.5% interest which sounds good but is an unsecured loan. Quite a risky investment if you ask me. Going to be very tough for UK travel industry with pound so weak

by Roller_Coaster Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:15 pm

Very risky in my opinion on face value. I haven't looked at their fundamentals but "I'm out". Relative weakness of the pound is but one concern over a golf based investment, particularly if it is being aimed at "retail" (ie you and me) investors (although that is assuming you are a normal person in the street Ray, and not receiving the offer as a lead contact of an institutional investor!).

I have got some beans though, for the right price. Plant them and untold riches will grow before your very eyes...

www.magicbeans.com

(any connection to any website real or fictional is purely coincidental and this is not an offer to provide anything magical, or indeed remotely bean-y which I do not possess - other than a few cans of baked beans in a tomato sauce, which you would be welcome to buy, although I am not qualified to provide any foodstuff or investment advice, you should seek your own independent financial and nutritional advice)

by MontysMerkin Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:20 pm

Sounds a sweet deal. I've got 38p going spare that I could be persuaded to invest....

by MontysMerkin Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:39 pm

super_realist wrote:Come on Monty, The atrocities of the past are a shameful thing, but is todays bloodshed our responsibility?

I think it would be naive to think that we bear no responsibility for the current bloodshed in the middle east, don't you?

by super_realist Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:47 pm

Depends what you mean. Are we responsible for IS? Absolutely not.

Have we made bad foreign policy decisions? Probably. Does that mean that we cause any reprisals as a result? No.

Look at the countries that have suffered because of those morons, France, Denmark, Belgium, hardly countries with a history of subjugating the middle east.

It's easy to blame the west for the problems of the east when they are far more to blame.

To claim this is all down to the Palestine/Israel issue is taking things a bit far.

by super_realist Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:49 pm

On another note, good to see Fracking get the go ahead.

by MontysMerkin Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:55 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html
Nothing more to be said about it really - just shameful.

Yep, hooray for fracking - that should keep the lights on for another year...

by super_realist Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:06 pm

If you're only talking about arms sales, then yes, British weapons kill a lot of people.

Well, yeah, Fracking is good. 10 million houses have Gas in the UK, can't heat, cook or shower in a house that's got gas utility if you don't have any gas? Never have had an answer from the lobby saying who would pay the 10k or so to convert a house to non gas.

by MontysMerkin Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:12 pm

super_realist wrote:If you're only talking about arms sales, then yes, British weapons kill a lot of people.

And doesn't it give you a warm rosy glow inside. Might break out into the National Anthem and recite some stirring Churchill stuff to some golfers.

by super_realist Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:13 pm

Never said it was a good thing Monty.

Careful though, you're beginning to sound like a cross between Mac and Corbyn.

by raycastleunited Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:05 am

Roller_Coaster wrote:Very risky in my opinion on face value. I haven't looked at their fundamentals but "I'm out". Relative weakness of the pound is but one concern over a golf based investment, particularly if it is being aimed at "retail" (ie you and me) investors (although that is assuming you are a normal person in the street Ray, and not receiving the offer as a lead contact of an institutional investor!).

I have got some beans though, for the right price. Plant them and untold riches will grow before your very eyes...

www.magicbeans.com

(any connection to any website real or fictional is purely coincidental and this is not an offer to provide anything magical, or indeed remotely bean-y which I do not possess - other than a few cans of baked beans in a tomato sauce, which you would be welcome to buy, although I am not qualified to provide any foodstuff or investment advice, you should seek your own independent financial and nutritional advice)

Quite disappointed that you're not selling beans on magicbeans.com, I had my credit card ready for action. I remember in the late 90s there was a baked bean price war, Tesco ended up selling their value beans for 2p a tin. Someone I knew hoarded hundreds of tins, he would fill a trolley with tins and wheel it away, he ended up selling some of them for around 5p a tin so made a profit, but he ended up eating a lot of beans that year. So flatulent I don't think anyone could sit next to him for a year. Can you tell this was when I was a student?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:52 am

MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:If you're only talking about arms sales, then yes, British weapons kill a lot of people.
And doesn't it give you a warm rosy glow inside. Might break out into the National Anthem and recite some stirring Churchill stuff to some golfers.

It could give you a warm rosy glow, especially if it's an explosive-tipped or frangible round. In fact, quite a lot of munitions might warm you up a bit.

Generally, British arms aren't the ones you see in the hands of IS loonies are they? Get a grip.

by super_realist Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:43 am

Someone doused your chips Navy?

by Sponsored content