Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[McLaren]

The Saudis should consultant her on how to get your message out there.

[super_realist]

The Saudis should consultant her on how to get your message out there.

I dont think the Saudis want to be seen as mentally unstable crackpotted hypocrites anymore than they already are Mac

[navyblueshorts]

She is a world class campaigner.

Not really, no. The World is a world class arse in falling over itself trying to make her out as something special. Oooo! Greta! Greta! How wonderful you are!

[super_realist]

She is a world class campaigner.

Not really, no. The World is a world class arse in falling over itself trying to make her out as something special. Oooo! Greta! Greta! How wonderful you are!

She's a world class hypocrite, like Harry and Meghan, Benedict Cumberbatch, David Attenborough, Emma Thompson, Gary Lineker, Lewis Hamilton etc.

[McLaren]

Super

Who has a pure enough record that you would listen to them about climate change?

[super_realist]

Super

Who has a pure enough record that you would listen to them about climate change?

I'll listen to people who have expertise in it, not hobby climate zealots with zero expertise or knowledge?
Isn't that the best position to be in for anything of any importance?

To put a point on it I heard Emma Thompson say tidal waves were on the increase as a result of climate change, so no, I won't listen to morons like that, why would you?

Mind you, being an expert doesn't mean you're right, see Neil Ferguson.

[McLaren]

Super

You get the science from the experts but other people are allowed to pass on the message, which you can always verify if you so wish. The people in ad agencies aren't experts on the products they sell but they are experts on how to sell it. Much like a celebrity or public figure can sell an idea without being the one who did the science.

Is it just me or is this bizarre that I need to explain this to someone?

[super_realist]

When it's demonstrable that these "messengers" don't understand the message, misrepresent it or are hypocritical about "the message", why would I give a toss about what they say?

[McLaren]

So you ad hominem them?

[super_realist]

So you ad hominem them?

What do you think a half witted, uninformed "celebrity " can tell you about ANY subject that you'd accept without scepticism?

You going to listen to Sam Smith tell you about diet for example?

[McLaren]

I'm done. If you don't understand marketing at this point then you probably never will.

[McLaren]

Saw this and thought the sentencing seemed harsh.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

[super_realist]

I'm done. If you don't understand marketing at this point then you probably never will.

I understand marketing. I just don't want to be marketed with laughable reasoning, mistruths, misrepresentation, absurd demands and mass hypocrisy. Why do you?

[super_realist]

Looks like governments covid policy failures coming home to roost.

[navyblueshorts]

Looks like governments covid policy failures coming home to roost.

Not really, no. At least, not yet. Wait for the inquiry, instead of some cretinous 'journalist' releasing a trove of private messages and a newspaper trying to make money publishing their alleged narrative as 'fact'.

"In the public interest" when a public inquiry isn't? **** off. They might even have damaged the upcoming inquiry. I hope there's some law(s) that can be thrown at them that hurt(s). Doubt it though given the fact that the demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy press have to be 'free' from anything except pathetic self-regulation...

[navyblueshorts]

Saw this and thought the sentencing seemed harsh.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

Tend to agree, not withstanding the tragic outcome of what happened. Imagine there might be an appeal...

[super_realist]

I'd give her a far harsher sentence.

[super_realist]

Looks like governments covid policy failures coming home to roost.

Not really, no. At least, not yet. Wait for the inquiry, instead of some cretinous 'journalist' releasing a trove of private messages and a newspaper trying to make money publishing their alleged narrative as 'fact'.

"In the public interest" when a public inquiry isn't? **** off. They might even have damaged the upcoming inquiry. I hope there's some law(s) that can be thrown at them that hurt(s). Doubt it though given the fact that the demonstrably corrupt and untrustworthy press have to be 'free' from anything except pathetic self-regulation...

These are messages already sent to the inquiry, so it can hardly damage the inquiry.
The inquiry should have been done and finished by now. Sweden and France have done theirs.

[incontinentia]

[McLaren]

Shameful, the greatest ball striker of all time.

[navyblueshorts]

Shameful, the greatest ball striker of all time.

Says whom? Define 'great ball striker'. Just received wisdom based on chuff all...

[navyblueshorts]

I'd give her a far harsher sentence.

You would...

[McLaren]

According to Tiger Hogan and Moe are the only players ever to master their swings.

[navyblueshorts]

According to Tiger Hogan and Moe are the only players ever to master their swings.

Must be true then, I guess. He's obviously seen every player who's ever struck a ball and is also a renowned coach. No mention of Nicklaus? Odd that, all things considered don't you think? No Kathy Whitworth (I guess TW wouldn't consider her, though)? Surely, Byron Nelson mastered his swing in 1945? What about Woods himself? What duration qualifies for so-called 'mastery'?

On that video clip of Normal, did they have Shot Tracer back then? Don't think so. I know a few club players who have no problem playing army golf.

You still haven't defined what is meant by a great ball striker, by the way. By what parameters are you assessing that? Smash factor? What?

[incontinentia]

The Moe Norman video is a spoof Navy.

[navyblueshorts]

The Moe Norman video is a spoof Navy.

[super_realist]

Gary Lineker finally pulled up by the BBC.

[McLaren]

Great to see Ian Wright and Alun Shearer do the right thing.

And on the comme, there is an easy way not to be compared to 1930s Germany.

[Duty281]

Amazing how so many of the 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences' group have disappeared, now that it's affected someone they like.

Match of the Day on Saturday sounds fantastic. No presenters, no pundits and no commentators. Hopefully the future.

[super_realist]

Amazing how so many of the 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences' group have disappeared, now that it's affected someone they like.

Match of the Day on Saturday sounds fantastic. No presenters, no pundits and no commentators. Hopefully the future.

Freedom of speech only normally exists if that free speech is deemed acceptable from a particular leftish perspective. Funny to see Lineker hoist by his own petard. Arch hypocrite, far left plank.

Mac, the language of the UK government on illegal immigration is not remotely comparable to 1930's Germany.

I disagree that anyone should be sacked over a single statement, but Lineker has frequent form and frequent warnings for breaking BBC contractual impartiality rules.

The silly "stand with Lineker" boycott has only shown how irrelevant presenters are.

[westisbest]

Time to get rid lineker anyway. The guys dull as dishwater, as his some of his compadres.

Let’s freshen it up. I think Natalie Sawyer would be perfect.

[super_realist]

Time to get rid lineker anyway. The guys dull as dishwater, as his some of his compadres.

Let’s freshen it up. I think Natalie Sawyer would be perfect.

BBC certainly have a habit of ruining shows with their diversity boxes and ageism.
Sawyer isn't black, lesbian, trans, disabled enough to front a BBC show.

[superflyweight]

Time to get rid lineker anyway. The guys dull as dishwater, as his some of his compadres.

Let’s freshen it up. I think Natalie Sawyer would be perfect.

BBC certainly have a habit of ruining shows with their diversity boxes and ageism.
Sawyer isn't black, lesbian, trans, disabled enough to front a BBC show.

Did you get a book of golf bore cliches for middle aged men for Christmas?  It's just gibberish.

[navyblueshorts]

The Lineker issue is a SNAFU on all sides. All this sort of thing has started because Governments, of all persuasions over the recent past, have threatened (sometimes pretty overtly) the BBC with the removal of its licence fee if they don't 'behave'.

Couldn't give a **** about a righteous celebrity (even if I do think he's an excellent TV anchor) posting on Twitter. We should be caring a lot more about politicians (of all stripes) trying to do away with the BBC in its entirety, to trying to influence it with threats of financial penalties if it says something A.N. Other tw*t of an MP doesn't like.

[super_realist]

The BBC, like the NHS was designed for a different time.
It is now out of date and it should be publically defunded.
The Licence fee is a tax on TV ownership and it should be converted to a subscription service.

The Lineker issue is not about what he said, but whether as a supposedly unbiased organisation and his wages funded by you and I under threat if criminal conviction if he is permitted to state his political view as a representative of a publically funded organisation.

What he did say though was crass and demonstrates what a poor grasp he has of politics. Stick to football and crisps Gary.

[navyblueshorts]

I'd maintain an argument for a state broadcaster funded out of taxation, but I imagine I'm in the minority these days. Everyone is all "Me! Me! Me! What's in it for me?" these days.

[super_realist]

Why? Why should anyone pay for a service they don't use? Makes no sense.

[McLaren]

Super if your house never has a fire or your cat never gets stuck up a tree would you still be ok paying for a fire service?

[super_realist]

Super if your house never has a fire or your cat never gets stuck up a tree would you still be ok paying for a fire service?

Terrible analogy Mac. The Fire Service is a valuable, life saving service worth funding, the BBC is not.
If the BBC was the only broadcast service I would be fine, but it doesn't offer anything that we should beholden to paying for. Basically they act as an authoritative institution which states you can only own a TV, if you pay for the BBC in taxation.

Why should a legally enforced licence be upheld rather than a subscription service? If it was so good, why would they fear a fairer model that allows a consumer choice?

[Soul Requiem]

Super if your house never has a fire or your cat never gets stuck up a tree would you still be ok paying for a fire service?

Terrible analogy Mac. The Fire Service is a valuable, life saving service worth funding, the BBC is not.
If the BBC was the only broadcast service I would be fine, but it doesn't offer anything that we should beholden to paying for. Basically they act as an authoritative institution which states you can only own a TV, if you pay for the BBC in taxation.

Why should a legally enforced licence be upheld rather than a subscription service? If it was so good, why would they fear a fairer model that allows a consumer choice?

You don't need to pay for the a TV licence to own a TV. I own many but stopped paying for the licence many years ago, preferring to use Netflix, Now TV, Disney+ and Prime instead. I miss out on BBC programming which is mostly rubbish now anyway but can still watch both ITV and Channel 4 on catch up.

[super_realist]

If you watch live TV, you need a licence regardless of whether it's BBC or not.

[Soul Requiem]

If you watch live TV, you need a licence regardless of whether it's BBC or not.

I am aware hence saying I watch ITV and Channel 4 on catch up not live.

[super_realist]

Fair enough. Do they hassle you for not having one?

[Soul Requiem]

Fair enough. Do they hassle you for not having one?

I've received two letters in five years, once after I informed them of my renewed status and once because my old Iplayer account was signed in elsewhere, subsequently cancelled the account completely and haven't been hassled since. No broadcaster other than the BBC tracks licence status for it's users.

[super_realist]

Think I'll do the same

[navyblueshorts]

Why? Why should anyone pay for a service they don't use? Makes no sense.

It makes some sense in an enlightened society if it's clear there's a societal good in having any such service - I guess we could argue all day over this latter bit, though. Next you'll be telling us that you shouldn't pay any National Insurance or taxes of any sort.

[Soul Requiem]

Why? Why should anyone pay for a service they don't use? Makes no sense.

It makes some sense in an enlightened society if it's clear there's a societal good in having any such service - I guess we could argue all day over this latter bit, though. Next you'll be telling us that you shouldn't pay any National Insurance or taxes of any sort.

They're not even vaguely the same thing. Societal good is in the eye of the beholder, I see no benefit to the BBC existing any more. The societal need for healthcare, decent roads, education etc. is a basic human right, a national broadcaster is not.

[super_realist]

Why? Why should anyone pay for a service they don't use? Makes no sense.

It makes some sense in an enlightened society if it's clear there's a societal good in having any such service - I guess we could argue all day over this latter bit, though. Next you'll be telling us that you shouldn't pay any National Insurance or taxes of any sort.

What a preposterous false equivalence.
National Insurance benefits ALL society. What possible benefit is there to society from the BBC?

I now live in a country where there is no state broadcaster dictated by a legally enforced tax and my life is no worse as a result.

[navyblueshorts]

Why? Why should anyone pay for a service they don't use? Makes no sense.

It makes some sense in an enlightened society if it's clear there's a societal good in having any such service - I guess we could argue all day over this latter bit, though. Next you'll be telling us that you shouldn't pay any National Insurance or taxes of any sort.

What a preposterous false equivalence.
National Insurance benefits ALL society. What possible benefit is there to society from the BBC?

I now live in a country where there is no state broadcaster dictated by a legally enforced tax and my life is no worse as a result.

I never said they were equivalent. Get off your absolutist horse. If you can't think of benefits from the BBC (yes, I accept it may need changes), there's no point in discussion. It's not my fault you have so little imagination.

[super_realist]

You made a quite ridiculous assertion that if you abolish the BBC licence fee by the same rational I should/will soon be arguing against NI or any taxation. Utterly preposterous.

Please tell me what you think are the benefits of the BBC that you think I can't get by means of a source that does not require  taxation on pain of a criminal conviction for non payment.

How does an enforced licence fee mean your society is enlightened? I live in a more enlightened society than the UK and it doesn't need this sort of enforced subscription.

[Sponsored content]