Isegrim

For the umpteenth time: I said that Souness needed time to prove himself one way or the other. He's used that time to prove that he isn't good enough. Which doesn't make me wrong because he still needed that time to prove his inadequacy in his role as manager of Newcastle United (not Liverpool, Blackburn, or any other club he may have been at in the past). It was simply the true, 100% correct statement that "A new manager needs time to prove himself" that makes me RIGHT and not WRONG. FACTARAMA. 73891[/snapback] Gemmill, you were wrong because you thought he was the man for the job when he came here. That is all I am saying, just admit you were wrong on that aspect and I will never bring it up again. 73902[/snapback] If that's true, then yes, Gemmill is wrong. Can't actually remember anyone thinking Souness was the man for the job though 73911[/snapback] NJS and Ally were the only ones IIRC. Though the latter should have given Gemmill a hint that it was utter nonsense to give him time...

Sorry, I hated him at Blackburn, I believe that makes me Soopa. Of course Leazes hated him at Liverpool, which makes him GREAT. 73880[/snapback] I hated him as a player at Boro. 73883[/snapback] I hated him as a player at Spurs. 73895[/snapback] In a former life I hated his father and his father's father and his father's father's father...

I do to a certain point understand why people in the beginning thought Souness was the right choice. I disagreed strongly as to me the shortcomings were to obvious (and I was right FACT tbh ). No seriously, I have no problem with being accused not giving the manager a chance. In my eyes Souness had every game the chance to prove me wrong. I was overly sceptical, but even I got a bit fooled by his first radio interview that sounded promising. Unfortunately I never saw only in the slightest that I was going to eat the humble pie Hansen (IIRC) said all Souness-bashing people will have to eat.. I'd gladly done it.

Going by that reckoning Ferguson would have been sacked by Man Utd early in his career, Morinho just likes to heap pressure on his rivals in my opinion. If he doesn't win the Champions League with Chelsea this season or next (which I'm sure is what Abramovich wants) then no doubt he'll be saying he wants time. Regarding Souness, I'm not saying give him more time as he was never the right man for the job, rather that he hasn't had time in my view. 73791[/snapback] the best 2 managers at Newcastle in recent times, Keegan and Robson. From the start, they brought an obvious improvement and came across as knowing what they were doing 73808[/snapback] So I imagined 18 months of utter shite (disguised by a cup run) under Bobby? There was no further sign of any improvement until Bellamy/Robert signed (see I can give praise to those two when rightful) 73822[/snapback] Quite correct tbh. 73827[/snapback] Yep, but with different expectations. Robson took over a club that had fallen back into meciocrity and the senior playing staff alienated by the former manager. That was the position Robson was taking over from. After messing a bit around by the signings of Cordone, Bassedas et al Robson got it right by just two signings who made a difference. Souness took over a club that had established itself in the upper half of the table. Things had gone stale under Robson and only few were disputing the fact that a change in managment was needed. But even though the trouble in the dressing room needed to be addressed it was thought that Robson's successor would take over a good squad (and himself said so). This was the position Souness was taking over from. But he didn't only in the slightest maintain Newcastle's position but took the club down into mediocrity again. That will most likely be two seasons in a row Newcastle miss out on Europe. This has a huge affect on finances and reputation. Robson might not have worked miracles right from the start, but he certainly didn't make things worse - in contrast to the current tosser still in charge.

So what's your stance now Gemmill, out of interest? Are you finally going to admit you were wrong in your assertion that Souness should be given a minimum of 2 years to prove himself, regardless of results and performances on the field, and his PR off it? Can we finally expect an "I was wrong" Gemmill exclusive? 73771[/snapback] If Souness does go now/or in the coming week(s), he hasn't had a proper chance to prove himself really. Any manager, regardless of who they are needs at least one full season in charge to do this. Of course, that ignores what most of us initially thought, i.e. he should never have been appointed in the first place. By getting rid now, without giving him a decent chance, Shepherd will be proving what a fuck up he made in the first place. 73775[/snapback] Sorry, but in my eyes Souness had more than a decent chance to prove himself. Of course you have to be sorry because some of the injuries he has to cope with. But in my eyes a manager shouldn't just be judged by what he is reaching with his first team, but also how he copes with difficult situations. Injuries are no excuse for the team he is sending out absolutely clueless. There is no apparent game plan (except 'frustrating the opposition' - and the own fans). No tactics. Just simple 70s style long ball game and waiting for a goal poacher to convert them. I'm warming to the idea of Allardyce as he looks to me in fact as the most forward thinking manager. If he is not available now (what I somewhat doubt because of the situation Bolton are currently in) then I would give Roeder the job until the end of the season and give a new proven manager a fresh chance without the burden of taking over in midseason ... especially as there are probably no suitable managers available now (i.e. the likes of Hitzfeld and Hiddink).

I saw about the first 45 minutes of Titanic once before turning it off. Rubbish! What happens in the end by the way? 67111[/snapback] I was dragged into it by a woman. When DiCaprio finally drowns I sighed and said "About time." I got "the stare" of about ten sobby teenagers in the row in front of us...

Special mention should go to "Truman Show" a great idea that was spoilt by the stupid grimacing of an incompetent actor.

Hmm, but it's not very easy to kick the pedals with only one leg...

Noooooooooooooooooo! *makes slow-motion stunt dive for snakehips' leg* 62922[/snapback] Someone promote him to mod, quick!!! 62934[/snapback] That sort of carry-on happens on another forum, not this one! 62944[/snapback] I was talking to HTT.

Noooooooooooooooooo! *makes slow-motion stunt dive for snakehips' leg* 62922[/snapback] Someone promote him to mod, quick!!!

No, you are just weird ... in a ... err .... positive way ... err ... YAY.

If you didn't do it so often, maybe he wouldn't look atcha like that. Maybe if you said Lou from Newcastle, to narrow it slightly, he'd be less confused. He'd probably still look atcha like that, but he'd be less confused. 62549[/snapback] No, it that case he would look terrified...

... the google image search isn't that difficult too handle...

Just to avoid more confusion. I herewith declare that I am not westendlad, Neil, Sammy, Cheyne/Adidas/Tyne/Benni/Li3nz, Gemmill, Bridget or SLP. I am not Graeme Souness either. I'm SPARTACUS.

They were all too busy reading this thread...

I know, I just looked for a reason to post this picture...

Why would anyone want two mediocre teams in the top flight? Anyway...

... I walked down to my economics test with some of the lads, and at one point of them suddenly announced "FUCK ME WITH A FISH FORK!!!" At which point I think my laughter could be perhaps referred to as "raucous". I maybe even guffawed. Anyways, OH MY GOD I LAUGHED. I then introduced him to "fuck me a lampshade" and, thanks to Isegrim yesterday, "fuck me with a lamp post". It then struck me that I didn't know what it was he was expostulating about in the first place, so about 5 mins on from the original outburst, I had to be like "umm.... why did you yell that??" Apparently it's because there was a HUGE puddle in the road. Hmm.... story started off well... tailed off in the middle.... ending was poor. Needs more dragons. 54112[/snapback] It had me in the middle and that made the story GREAT © SLP 2005.

If only for how hard security'll have to work to keep me away.... *sigh* 53899[/snapback] I think you need help tbh. I would imagine he is repulsive to 99% of women! 53924[/snapback] Yes, but this Lou isn't a woman, it is a lunatic.

We need a wider range of forums. Here are my suggestions. Racist forum Australia World Cup forum Split personalities forum Laurent Robert forum Graeme Souness lover forum Graeme Souness hater forum Gay forum Isegrim appreciation forum Piss-Up-organisation forum 99-forum Gingerforum (moderated by Gemmill) Beeb-news-forum (moderated by Rob W) All-too-serious-forum (moderated by Sammynb) Suggestions-for-more-forums-forum Famous-forum-above-forum etc. pp.

What's the point in explaining you complex matters when you already struggle with using google properly tbh.

I see what you're saying but.... My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents". I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis. On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic. 45161[/snapback] I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%. And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they...

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver. 45109[/snapback] Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it. 45114[/snapback] I don't think even with future facilites you'll be able a fair insurance system based on mileage. Look, insurances are basing their system on the cost of insured events. They therefore look how much money they have to acquire. The calculation is mostly based on a year, with insurants paying periodically (I don't think that's different in England). To get a fair system they now have to generate a system where the contribution of each insurant matches the insured events he causes as good as possible. Mileage doesn't fit into this system, because you have one parameter too much. You would have to base this system on insured events/year on one hand and insured events/mileage on the other hand. Well, you could change the system by crossing out the time factor, but then how to calculate the contribution so that they provide the insurance with enough cash constantly. Mileage is also a far too variable. Gender on the other hand is a static parameter. Renton is right, though. You could also base your calculation on other static parameters like race. That would obviously cause a huge uproar. Anyway, there exists an EC-discrimantion act that has to get implemented into national legislation. It prohibits every kind of discrimination of race, religion, gender etc. It is a big topic here in Germany (especially among privat law scientiest like me), because women right groups demand the act to be implemented as soon as possible, because they feel especially discriminated by one economical branch...and guess what...it's the insurance industry that is discriminating women in a lot branches due to their statistically longer life time. It's funny while those women are able to dig out loads of insurance sectors where they are discriminated, men do only come up with one...

Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver.

I think the insurance doesn't give a toss about a woman driving 1 mile every week to her hairdresser or a man cruising with his hairdresser the land up and down all day. They are just interested in how likely it is statistically that the driver will cause an accident... 45051[/snapback] So if I drove 140 miles a day, don't you think I'd statistically be more likely to be involved in an accident that my mother who drives 3 miles to get to work? 45060[/snapback] Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles. 45080[/snapback] Hang on, you've lost me. Are you saying that insurances companies DO actually take into account how far you drive, or are you saying that the distance you drive has no bearing on how likely you are to cause an accident (fatigue for example, no?). I understand what you are saying about the statistics behind how per mile accidents happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that you're more likely to crash driving longer distances than you are short distances. I'd also like to see the stats about how many accidents are on motorways compared to minor roads tbh. In my experience (and I hope I'm not gonna get labelled sexist for sharing my own experience here ) but most (not all) accidents I've seen looked to have been caused by females. 45086[/snapback] I just wanted to demonstrate that mileage doesn't matter, wether insurance companies do take it into account or not. Your last point is obviously your own (probably a bit clouded) experience. Insurance companies base their whole system on statistics. If all accidents were caused by women insurance companies would charge them higher than men. They just look how many of their insurants cause insured events. And if they see that of their female insurants less events are caused they make them pay less than their male counterparts. I don't know much about the English health system, but in Germany the same kind of discrimination can be found at health insurances. Women statistically get older than men and cause more insured events. That's why they have to pay more for their insurance than men.