Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by dynamark Sun 11 Aug 2013, 8:07 am

First topic message reminder :

Hi folks not been around much lately due to new job and no access at work.
Digs I would avoid franchises and any long term property commitments connected to the business.
I very nearly bought into a coffee shop /café a few years ago and in the end it was the hours and time involved which put me off but the lad who bought it is flying .He will be open this morning and doing good business.Anything like that is all about position of course.One of the best businesses I have seen is a café bar in Bristol on the hill up to the Clifton area .opens at seven in the morning and closes at two in the morning.Change of menu and prices late afternoon and lighting /music for the evening trade.
Seen a few things in my new job with a large housing association providing social housing for the unwashed,unemployed,unfit,mentally ill,etc.One surprise is that they have properties and areas where only set religious groups are allowed to live.They call it 'creating communities'?
Hope all are well.

by MustPuttBetter Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:15 am

Is anyone in any doubt that religion is sexist? I thought this was common knowledge!

by super_realist Thu 19 Sep 2013, 11:26 am

gaelgowfer wrote:Don't think that's quite accurate super eg there's no way you can compare say Church of Scotland teachings to the muslim variety.

I do think think religious indoctrination of children should be banned though.

In their own way, The Church of Scotland is pretty barmy too, and just as immoral and contradictory.

by MontysMerkin Thu 19 Sep 2013, 12:36 pm

Think the whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt tbh. It was in the daily fail, a tittle tattle selling, lying, moronic rag served up to those with no sense of humor or intelligence (no offence super laughing

).

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:37 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:Think the whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt tbh. It was in the daily fail, a tittle tattle selling, lying, moronic rag served up to those with no sense of humor or intelligence (no offence super ).

A good point!

by super_realist Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:39 pm

Indeed, for a dreadful paper, it was at least if not remotely newsworthy, a laugh.
I love seeing the noses of pious religious idiots being put out of joint, whether intentional or unintentional , it was funny to hear of a muslim eat meat they didn't want and to be offered wine as compo.

by Davie Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:42 pm

Would you have found it as funny if it was a tee-total vegetarian? Or was it just because it was a muslim?

by super_realist Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:46 pm

Yes, I would have found it funny if it was a vegetarian tee-totaller, even though they at least may have an actual reason to be vegetarian or tee total, but then again, I doubt very much if they would complain as if someone had just handed them a dead baby.
Laughing at religious nuttery though gives it a certain edge, if a Catholic had been handed a slice of beef on a Friday I would also have found it funny.

by MontysMerkin Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:33 pm

But lets face it, it probably never happened anyway

by gaelgowfer Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:35 pm

Anyone else think this veil business is down to a few women making a political statement rather than religious one which, incidentally is not a requirement under Islamic law?

And ... and .. anyone ever notice that 'veiled' women always wear eye makeup?

by super_realist Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:42 pm

Any religious statement re: Veils, Crosses, Beads, skull cap, chopping off your foreskin, etc, just demonstrates to everyone you are gullible and suggestible.
It really is as stupid as walking down the street dressed as Humpty Dumpty or a Leprechaun.

by gaelgowfer Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:50 pm

super ... the thing that really gets me is that I never imagined a day when human rights legislation would be used as a weapon against us.

by super_realist Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:54 pm

Unfortunately Gael, the world is full of people who wish to get offended on others behalf.
If you want to dress like an idiot and have baseless customs, fine, leave them at home and don't expect any special treatment.

by Roller_Coaster Thu 19 Sep 2013, 3:36 pm

super_realist wrote:
If you want to dress like an idiot and have baseless customs, fine, leave them at home and don't expect any special treatment.

Sh*t - sounds like us golfists are knackered then!

by mystiroakey Thu 19 Sep 2013, 3:48 pm

by pedro Thu 19 Sep 2013, 4:01 pm

Roller!!! That's the comment of the year!!

by shclaff Thu 19 Sep 2013, 4:06 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:Think the whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt tbh. It was in the daily fail, a tittle tattle selling, lying, moronic rag served up to those with no sense of humor or intelligence (no offence super ).

by kwinigolfer Thu 19 Sep 2013, 5:41 pm

Big, BIG, decision by Andy Murray to undergo "minor back surgery" as reported on the Beeb. Good luck to him, hope all goes well.

by gaelgowfer Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:06 am

kwinigolfer wrote:Big, BIG, decision by Andy Murray to undergo "minor back surgery" as reported on the Beeb. Good luck to him, hope all goes well.

Indeed kwini. He's probably reached the stage where he really has no choice but to undergo treatment. Took this from this morning's Scotsman ...

Dr Angus Hunter, senior lecturer in exercise physiology at Stirling University’s sports school, said Murray’s rapid physical development could be part of his problem. He said: “Andy has developed himself quite dramatically over the past few years so his muscle structure has adapted. But sometimes when you have these changes, working at optimum level, the body is being pushed so much that some areas become too tight or there might be some neural-impingement.

“When this happens, the problem has to be dealt with.”

A pinched nerve?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:10 am

Hope it goes OK. Sounds like Dr. Angus Hunter (medic or Ph.D. I wonder?) is making it up as he goes along based on no knowledge of Murray's problem what-so-ever.

by gaelgowfer Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:30 am

nbs ... he's not claiming he knows what's wrong ... merely surmising as to what could be the problem.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 21 Sep 2013, 10:42 am

But he's a sports 'physiologist', not a clinical neurologist. Still, I suppose someone must have asked him for an opinion so he gave it. Typical sh*t journalism - go ask the wrong person and then write some 'authoritative' article Rolling Eyes

.

by JAS Mon 23 Sep 2013, 8:02 am

Di Canio sacked....right or wrong??

by mystiroakey Mon 23 Sep 2013, 8:36 am

Wrong.

by ralphjohn69 Mon 23 Sep 2013, 8:41 am

JAS wrote:Di Canio sacked....right or wrong??

You're right, he has been sacked! Wink

I'd say a bit premature although his team at the moment look hopeless..

by JAS Mon 23 Sep 2013, 9:20 am

I think it's wrong. In retrospect it was probably wrong to appoint him in the first place. I tend to think the whole thing asks more questions about the Directors decision making ability than it does about him. They knew what they were taking on in terms of his rather unique man management style (or did they just look at Swindon's position before he took over and where they were when he left??). If they weren't aware of his managerial style then thats a shocking lack of due diligence back in March/April. If they were and they decided to run with it and back him with money in the summer then the weekend decision was a very premature lunge at the panic button.

I think there's also a sub-plot here regarding a conflict between manager control/power and player power. His man management style worked at Swindon as the players (even though they may not have liked it), by and large,did as they were told and accepted managerial decisions and dictats. Now for spoilt cossetted players on upwards of £50000 per week, they think they are above being told what to do by an unproven (at the top level) manager. I personally think player power has got out of control to the point where it stifles a new managers ability to stamp his authority at a club.

by super_realist Mon 23 Sep 2013, 9:26 am

Can Sunderland realistically expect to be anywhere but near the bottom?

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 9:34 am

Would be interesting to hear what Digs thinks being 'one of them'.

It's a strange one. I'd love to say 'wrong' but he really was making a mess of things. As JAS says it was probably wrong to appoint him in the first place. That said his big character probably did lead to helping them stay up.

The odd bit is letting him buy 14 players. If they were thinking 'if we're bottom after 5 we'll bin him' then why let him buy 14 players. It is obvious with that turnover it's going to take time. Why go into it if you've not decided to give him the time regardless.

He's obviously crazy but they must have known that before appointing him. A right mess

by mystiroakey Mon 23 Sep 2013, 10:40 am

Sunderland don't have any quality. I like Di canio. He is a character. Sunderland expect way too much with the resources they have

by JAS Mon 23 Sep 2013, 10:51 am

super_realist wrote:Can Sunderland realistically expect to be anywhere but near the bottom?

Not if they're going to panic button eject managers on a semi regular basis.

Lasting success is built on continuity, in this day and age however that alone is no longer good enough, there ALSO needs to be obscenely deep piles of cash. Clubs really need to come to terms with that equation.

At the end of the day with the right benefactor making the right decisions and choices Sunderland could be with the big boys (their average home gate suggests that they certainly have the fanbase). Currently though...they are a million miles away from gatecrashing the top 6 party and taking up a more permanent residence in the top half of the table.

by Roller_Coaster Mon 23 Sep 2013, 10:55 am

The policy of complete, instant overhaul of squad (buy 14 players while shipping out a big chunk too) is a massive gamble. As a QPR fan I saw a similar overhaul fail stunningly in the last 2 years (one year scraping a stay up then consistently bottom of the league - see any parallels?). You need everyone pulling together and buying in to have any chance of gelling into an effective unit (which simply couldn't happen in pre-season and 5 games anyway). Di Canio seems to be more divisive and destructive than cohesive and progressive and IMO his attitude was simply never going to work.

Perhaps unfair (rather than wrong) to sack him so soon, but not as wrong as the appointment in the first place given his approach/style was no secret. If the players are decent (I've no idea) and they get a good man manager in at least there is sufficient time to turn it around.

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:03 am

Mysti, it's all well and good to say they don't have any quality so why expect so much, but Di Canio brought them all in. If they have no quality it is because he brought in players with no quality. That's hardly a great sign.

I think that if they were stuck bottom of the table but were plodding along as most sides do he would have gotten more time. They must have been aware it would take time.
But with the walking out to 'front up' (or goad as it looked) the fans this week, the getting himself sent off last week ('ref i dare you to send me off'), the slagging the players off in public etc.....
I suspect it's all gone a little bit more wrong than the amount of wrong they were bargaining for.

I don't normally agree with hasty sackings but i do understand this one

by beninho Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:10 am

Di Canio is not the ticket, carrot and stick can work, but when there is no carrot, it will just pee people off. Sunderland have never been with the big boys, and will not be unless a crazy russian steps in.

by mystiroakey Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:25 am

MustPuttBetter wrote:Mysti, it's all well and good to say they don't have any quality so why expect so much, but Di Canio brought them all in. If they have no quality it is because he brought in players with no quality. That's hardly a great sign.

I think that if they were stuck bottom of the table but were plodding along as most sides do he would have gotten more time. They must have been aware it would take time.
But with the walking out to 'front up' (or goad as it looked) the fans this week, the getting himself sent off last week ('ref i dare you to send me off'), the slagging the players off in public etc.....
I suspect it's all gone a little bit more wrong than the amount of wrong they were bargaining for.

I don't normally agree with hasty sackings but i do understand this one

He did exactly what palace did. We bought 10 or so average players that would come to the club(but at least we got one quality prospect in gayle)

What big names could di canio have bought?

by super_realist Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:26 am

Who'd want to play there. Sunderland is a toilet.

Sorry Digs

by mystiroakey Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:28 am

Point being he picked 10 or so players, all average(with possible potential) but would have fitted into his playing style

Now sunderland have to get a manager to use the players that were only relevant to di canios plans??

There is literally no point in this sacking at all IMO.

by beninho Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:53 am

Where they signed by di Canio or by the new director of football? A lot of clubs are going down this route, that they employ a coach, but make the signings themselves. It has worked for years in europe, and is starting to have an impact here.

The point of his sacking is that the players had no respect for him, as soon as a manager looses the dressing room its time to get rid.

by kwinigolfer Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:54 am

Steve Bruce and O'Neill must think this is a hoot.
Terrible appointment, always going to end badly; I like Henry Winter's tweet to the effect you can't manage a football club with hand grenades.

I think Diggers was quite optimistic so sure he'll be disappointed.

by mystiroakey Mon 23 Sep 2013, 11:55 am

And he brought all the players in.

If he can't get respect then YES... he needs to go.. I am just not sure how that was possible tbh

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 2:16 pm

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Mysti. In the short amount of this season already gone he has overhauled the squad (which everyone knows doesn't work), has p*ssed all of the players off so none of them are pulling for him and they're bottom of the league.

Based on all the evidence they're going down in record time. Surely they had to make a change? What's the alternative, do nothing?

by JAS Mon 23 Sep 2013, 2:54 pm

It would be interesting to know the stat "worst start after 5 games that survived relegation".

If the players aren't pulling for a new manager then it's a lack of professionalism on their part...goodness knows they're paid enough to perform, they're not paid to sulk because they don't like what the manager's telling them they need to do. Yes OK, he is indeed a complete Fruit Loop but are we seriously being asked to believe that no-one knew he was like that before now? Sunderland appointed him knowing what they were getting, yes they took a bold risk and they backed him by giving him money to spend in the close season....now they've flip flopped into panic mode because they haven't roared out the blocks with a squad that must be still trying to gel. Crazy crazy decision. Given that they've unceremoniously dumped O'Niell, Bruce and now DiCanio, what confidence will a prospective new manager have that he'll be given time to sort things out. When a new manager does come in and makes an assessment that the squad is indeed a bag of steaming poo, will he be given the funds to strengthen?? Personally if I were a top flight or aspiring top flight manager I'd be reluctant to touch the job with a bargepole

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 2:56 pm

I don't think it's a crazy decision in this instance.

Like i say, i suspect he would have got time if they were just struggling. But I think Di Canio has been more insane than they bargained for and it's too much

by JAS Mon 23 Sep 2013, 3:22 pm

Well if it's down to his personality and they considered him insane, the crazy decision was to appoint him in the first place if they had no intention of sticking with the bold decision they made at the time. They would have at least got an insight to his craziness toward the back end of last season. If they had reservations then...why keep him and give him pots of money to spend when they would be thinking "right next time he steps out of line he's gone!!" A new manager will probably need a similar budget (enough to fed millions of starving children in the world) to put things right.

by goldwolf Mon 23 Sep 2013, 3:31 pm

Di Canio's sacking must be bad news for all Palace fans eh mysti; with a new man in charge there'll be no keeping you off the bottom!!

by hend085 Mon 23 Sep 2013, 3:46 pm

think is some of the players he brought in are actually pretty highly regarded in european football. giacherrini, altitdore etc.
whoever appointed PDC should also be sacked at this point IMO

by Davie Mon 23 Sep 2013, 3:47 pm

It seems it's a difficult time for David Moyes at Man Utd. Their stars won't perform for him like they did for Sir Alex.

Howard Webb has been especially poor.

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 3:47 pm

Because JAS I suspect they didn't expect the amount of crazy that they got. I didn't know he was THIS crazy! You can do all the prep on someone you like, doesn't mean they can't surprise you. Football clubs aren't perfect or foolproof

by beninho Mon 23 Sep 2013, 4:32 pm

I mentioned it earlier, but Di Canio didnt sign the players, the director of football did. Di Canio is the Head Coach. It means that it is more straightforward if/when a manager is sacked, as they keep the same scouting/signing processes in place. Not all managers agree with head, but when someones job title is Head Coach, this is normally what happens in the background. So there will not be a big splash on players for a new manager at sunderland. Though the north east is a basket case for football clubs..

by MustPuttBetter Mon 23 Sep 2013, 4:54 pm

Ben, probably true but there is no doubt Di Canio would have had a big say in the type of players he wanted if not names themselves, with the director then doing the negotiation. So the fact remains that the squad will be set up to suit Di Canio's 'vision' and potentially not the new manager's

by SmithersJones Mon 23 Sep 2013, 5:50 pm

This gives some insight, if true; Torygraph

by super_realist Mon 23 Sep 2013, 6:44 pm

Let's face it Sunderland are just scheisse.
They are a yo-yo club which flits between the Premiership and the Championship with the odd good year that gives yet another set of deluded fans that stupid expectation that greatness is around the corner and the odd over-rated over-priced signing who arrives like a messiah and leaves like a criminal. They are just one of a dozen teams who could go down and one of many which discards managers like the betting slips used to bet when they will be sacked.
Sbragia, Bruce, O'Neil and now the madman Di Canio, who was never going to work long term.
Just another team who need to accept their place in the game, which looks like the Championship.

by Sponsored content