By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I see that Koeman (present manager of the Dutch national team) has said that the international career of a 26 year old winger is now "closed" following his transfer to a Saudi club.
Koeman says that the move shows a lack of ambition to play at the highest level and therefore makes him unsuitable for international duty.
He distinguished the case of a defender he took to the Euros on the grounds that said defender went to a Saudi club because his PL team was not playing him.
I'm very definitely in the Koeman camp on this.
I think the Saudis (and other rich Arab nations) pose a risk to all football in Europe and if enough players are tempted by the money, we will see a drop in standards.
I also think that players should examine their conscience at least briefly and see if they really want to paid by those with such a poor human rights record.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 16:55 - Sep 3 with 4064 views
A turning point perhaps? on 17:02 - Sep 3 by felly1
And who can blame him. 400k a week..yes please. I'd probably be prepared to be John Westwoods personal man servant for half that weekly wage.
And not only £400k a week but tax free if he stays for two years minimum apparently. Gets a bit complicated if it’s not all it’s cracked up to be and he wants to come back to the PL early and play proper football again but if he can hack the lifestyle changes and the Mickey Mouse football then it is certainly big bucks to be earned for a bit of a sacrifice for a relatively short period of time.
The sad fact is we are fans, not professional footballers with a limited career, so who can blame him? The majority on this site (including me) are old school, we view things from a fans view with the word "loyalty" built in as pre Sky the game was about playing football but it is now money? Harsh but true?
1
A turning point perhaps? on 22:03 - Sep 3 with 3627 views
A turning point perhaps? on 21:47 - Sep 3 by Saintcole7
The sad fact is we are fans, not professional footballers with a limited career, so who can blame him? The majority on this site (including me) are old school, we view things from a fans view with the word "loyalty" built in as pre Sky the game was about playing football but it is now money? Harsh but true?
Very true
0
A turning point perhaps? on 09:52 - Sep 4 with 3354 views
A turning point perhaps? on 17:10 - Sep 3 by Jellybaby
West is best 901, better than all the rest?
Got your rose tinted Western glasses on again?
You'll have to explain Mr Jellybaby.
The point is whether player choosing riches over international duty will harm the game in the more established (European) leagues?
West may not be "best" but in this example, west is where the quality is presently in football.
Here's a tip. Not everything is a conspiracy but making unwarranted and incoherent leaps of cause and effect is a well known technique used by conspiracy theorists.
A turning point perhaps? on 09:52 - Sep 4 by saint901
You'll have to explain Mr Jellybaby.
The point is whether player choosing riches over international duty will harm the game in the more established (European) leagues?
West may not be "best" but in this example, west is where the quality is presently in football.
Here's a tip. Not everything is a conspiracy but making unwarranted and incoherent leaps of cause and effect is a well known technique used by conspiracy theorists.
"I also think that players should examine their conscience at least briefly and see if they really want to paid by those with such a poor human rights record."
These kinds of comments always come across to me as incredibly conceited and unsubstantiated. If the West once was a shining beacon in a dark world then I believe those days have long gone, but also the game is so global that clubs in the West are owned by goodness knows who, so again your point is invalid.
If you think the West or specifically Europe has some divine right to keep the world's best footballers within it's confines, then you are welcome to explain your reasoning, but I think most of us understand how the real world works.
Thank you for the tip, if you don't mind me returning the favour, try not to see conspiracy theory in a post where there is none, I fear these revelations are making you paranoid Sir!
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 15:12 - Sep 5 with 3028 views
What is conceited about asking a human being to examine their conscience before working for another human being who - judged by the standards of today - has a poor record in how they treat human beings?
Using dark age European history to justify somehow the killing of journalists, the disregard of migrant workers health and safety, the bombing and starving of Yemeni people seems a little strange?
And another tip to help you along today.
Sometimes the majority are right.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 11:12 - Sep 6 with 2886 views
Every man has his price. 20.8 million pounds a year for two years is actually somwhere above what it would cost to have me commit genocide, let alone play football.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 17:02 - Sep 6 with 2805 views
A turning point perhaps? on 15:12 - Sep 5 by saint901
What is conceited about asking a human being to examine their conscience before working for another human being who - judged by the standards of today - has a poor record in how they treat human beings?
Using dark age European history to justify somehow the killing of journalists, the disregard of migrant workers health and safety, the bombing and starving of Yemeni people seems a little strange?
And another tip to help you along today.
Sometimes the majority are right.
The conceit is judging one country to be morally superior to another. I am no defender of Saudi Arabia, but they are not involved in the "unconditional " support of a country carpet bombing another, or a state sponsored genocide of unborn children, or the genital mutilation of confused teenagers or the majority of their top teams promoting gambling, shall I go on? I think the phrase is, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. This holier than thou attitude is cringe worthy.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 18:23 - Sep 6 with 2775 views
A turning point perhaps? on 17:06 - Sep 6 by Jellybaby
The conceit is judging one country to be morally superior to another. I am no defender of Saudi Arabia, but they are not involved in the "unconditional " support of a country carpet bombing another, or a state sponsored genocide of unborn children, or the genital mutilation of confused teenagers or the majority of their top teams promoting gambling, shall I go on? I think the phrase is, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. This holier than thou attitude is cringe worthy.
Easy to claim moral relativism, Jelly - 'all as bad as each other'. Except they're not.
Here's some basic starter material for you to use in applying some critical thinking to this issue:
Thank you Ian. Bias though is built in to all statistics, it is inevitable, so there may well be truth in there, but it means little to me. A quick search reveals "Freedom House" is behind these stats and this is a counter review;
Conclusion: Freedom House’s consistent pattern of bias and partisanship favoring left-of-center democrats over right-of-center democrats in country after country cannot be denied. In no sense is the organization objective or neutral. There is no reason why conservatives in America and throughout the West should consider Freedom House reports any different from the propaganda emanating from left-wing NGOs such Amnesty International (which wanted George W. Bush arrested for war crimes), Human Rights Watch (which wanted Obama to investigate Bush for war crimes), or George Soros’s multiple front groups.
I do not adhere to moral relativism at all, on the contrary, I am a moral absolutist, but my absolutes may differ from yours based on philosophical and/or religious beliefs.
Equally, I do not believe that all countries are as bad as each other. The original point made was that Tony should examine his conscience before playing in the Saudi league, I think we are in danger of bigotry and hypocrisy when we say stuff like that.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 15:34 - Sep 7 with 2543 views
A turning point perhaps? on 12:39 - Sep 7 by Jellybaby
Thank you Ian. Bias though is built in to all statistics, it is inevitable, so there may well be truth in there, but it means little to me. A quick search reveals "Freedom House" is behind these stats and this is a counter review;
Conclusion: Freedom House’s consistent pattern of bias and partisanship favoring left-of-center democrats over right-of-center democrats in country after country cannot be denied. In no sense is the organization objective or neutral. There is no reason why conservatives in America and throughout the West should consider Freedom House reports any different from the propaganda emanating from left-wing NGOs such Amnesty International (which wanted George W. Bush arrested for war crimes), Human Rights Watch (which wanted Obama to investigate Bush for war crimes), or George Soros’s multiple front groups.
I do not adhere to moral relativism at all, on the contrary, I am a moral absolutist, but my absolutes may differ from yours based on philosophical and/or religious beliefs.
Equally, I do not believe that all countries are as bad as each other. The original point made was that Tony should examine his conscience before playing in the Saudi league, I think we are in danger of bigotry and hypocrisy when we say stuff like that.
Thought you were a bit of a freedom warrior.
Absolutely no denying the correlation between human rights/freedoms and democracy. Obvious really - those in power in democracies can be held to account by the press, the legislature, the judiciary and the ballot box. Whereas those with autocratic power can do whatever they like to whoever they like and are only held to account by military coups.
A turning point perhaps? on 15:34 - Sep 7 by DorsetIan
Thought you were a bit of a freedom warrior.
Absolutely no denying the correlation between human rights/freedoms and democracy. Obvious really - those in power in democracies can be held to account by the press, the legislature, the judiciary and the ballot box. Whereas those with autocratic power can do whatever they like to whoever they like and are only held to account by military coups.
But democracy in UK and US for example is the choice between 2 alternating parties provided by the regime that are ultimately controlled by the same people behind the scenes, who also control the Press, the legislature and the Judiciary.
These 2 parties can continually blame each other and take a rest between stints of mis-governance. This has the appearance of being better than autocracy, but amounts to the same thing.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 23:22 - Sep 8 with 2209 views
A turning point perhaps? on 20:10 - Sep 8 by Jellybaby
But democracy in UK and US for example is the choice between 2 alternating parties provided by the regime that are ultimately controlled by the same people behind the scenes, who also control the Press, the legislature and the Judiciary.
These 2 parties can continually blame each other and take a rest between stints of mis-governance. This has the appearance of being better than autocracy, but amounts to the same thing.
Amazing how these behind the scenes people manage to control all political parties, the press, the legislature and the judiciary all so efficiently but fail to shut you up.
You must either be very brave or very stupid to out them so publicly, seeing as they manage to control all of the above it surely wouldn’t be too hard or too inconceivable for them to bump you off.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 08:34 - Sep 9 with 2065 views
A turning point perhaps? on 23:22 - Sep 8 by saintsfanbrock
Amazing how these behind the scenes people manage to control all political parties, the press, the legislature and the judiciary all so efficiently but fail to shut you up.
You must either be very brave or very stupid to out them so publicly, seeing as they manage to control all of the above it surely wouldn’t be too hard or too inconceivable for them to bump you off.
Well if I ever go quiet Saintsfanbrock, you will know that I have been paid off or bumped off!
In the meantime try this;
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 08:52 - Sep 9 with 2051 views
What is preferable in Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World? Living your delta existence watching your plasma tv or drowning in mud, blood and snot in a trench?
0
A turning point perhaps? on 10:40 - Sep 9 with 1970 views
A turning point perhaps? on 20:10 - Sep 8 by Jellybaby
But democracy in UK and US for example is the choice between 2 alternating parties provided by the regime that are ultimately controlled by the same people behind the scenes, who also control the Press, the legislature and the Judiciary.
These 2 parties can continually blame each other and take a rest between stints of mis-governance. This has the appearance of being better than autocracy, but amounts to the same thing.
You're completely missing the point. There is a clear correlation between living in a democracy and the human rights/freedoms enjoyed.
There are more that two democracies in the world and even those with binary systems can see wild swings in the politics of either. See Corbyn. See Trump.
And speak to anyone in Eastern Europe who has lived either within the Soviet Union or as part of its orbit and ask them if there is no difference living in an independent democracy. The idea that it makes no difference is ridiculous.
A turning point perhaps? on 08:52 - Sep 9 by kernow
What is preferable in Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World? Living your delta existence watching your plasma tv or drowning in mud, blood and snot in a trench?
Huxleys were good at nihilism.
Aldous's grandfather Thomas was known as "Darwin's bulldog", such was his enthusiasm for evolution and his grandson Julian, Aldous's brother is known as the "father of transhumanism". The link between the two views is obvious when you think about it.
Brave New World is predictive programming, softening up the masses for their preferred future. You can see the same themes in that other renowned Eugenicist advocate H G Wells in his novels.
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 16:37 - Sep 10 with 1773 views
A turning point perhaps? on 14:09 - Sep 10 by Jellybaby
Huxleys were good at nihilism.
Aldous's grandfather Thomas was known as "Darwin's bulldog", such was his enthusiasm for evolution and his grandson Julian, Aldous's brother is known as the "father of transhumanism". The link between the two views is obvious when you think about it.
Brave New World is predictive programming, softening up the masses for their preferred future. You can see the same themes in that other renowned Eugenicist advocate H G Wells in his novels.
The Saudis are an awful bunch. Persecute gays, murder journalists, treat migrant workers terribly, to name just a few reasons why. Sponsor terrorism as well.
But never mind. They put on good boxing shows, World Cups and F1 races. So let’s forget all the other stuff.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 19:21 - Sep 10 with 1734 views
A turning point perhaps? on 14:09 - Sep 10 by Jellybaby
Huxleys were good at nihilism.
Aldous's grandfather Thomas was known as "Darwin's bulldog", such was his enthusiasm for evolution and his grandson Julian, Aldous's brother is known as the "father of transhumanism". The link between the two views is obvious when you think about it.
Brave New World is predictive programming, softening up the masses for their preferred future. You can see the same themes in that other renowned Eugenicist advocate H G Wells in his novels.
We’re probably all very well aware of how well read you are, mon petit, fruity, squidgy little bon bon. Any chance of addressing the points? Democracy or autocracy? No doubt in my mind how I’d prefer to live.
0
A turning point perhaps? on 12:22 - Sep 11 with 1644 views
And here's me thinking that Brave New World is just a novel about the dangers of authorities gaining too much power and part of a much wider canon of work which explores the same themes.
Oh well, now I know that it's a subtle attempt to "program" the minds of that vanishingly small percentage of the world population who have read it, seen the film, listened to the radio play.
Presumably 1984 is a similar attempt written by an avowed anti establishment communist who had a thing about fascism and how it should be resisted?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
