Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TabClear

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108
1
Sometimes fellas need game time or maybe a bit more game time in a proper match. They could also have been trying out things. It may be a meaningless match but it doesn't mean don't play your big players

I would agree with that but Fab has played every match lately. If he goes down we are in serious trouble.

Funny game last night. Villa did well but it did show that no matter how good you are, physically there is a step change from 17-18 to 20. Good to have Thiago back, he does look to have that different class in seeing passes. We probably have not had that since Couthino left. You wonder how many of those 1-1 draws would have been wins had he played?

Still concerned about the high line we play looking at the United game. Thats two goals (Son and last night) that have been identical. Our CHs ae not quick enough to recover and I would worry about Martial/Rashford/James pace, especially with Bruno's ability to pick a pass.

2
Predicted line up : kelleher Neco Williams VDB milner Thiago ox Jones taki orgi shaq

Well that was bullshit...

Kelleher, N. Williams, R. Williams, Fabinho, Milner, Henderson, Wijnaldum, Jones, Mane, Minamino, Salah.

Subs: Alisson, Thiago, Firmino, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Origi, Shaqiri, Robertson, Phillips, Alexander-Arnold.

Way stronger than expected. Five first choice regulars in there. Maybe he feels they need a confidence boost ahead of the United game.

They better win now!

Has to be for confidence...I hope it doesn't come back to bite him!

Who remembers Havant & Waterlooville?!

Lucas's finest moment!  :D

3
Predicted line up : kelleher Neco Williams VDB milner Thiago ox Jones taki orgi shaq

Well that was bullshit...

Kelleher, N. Williams, R. Williams, Fabinho, Milner, Henderson, Wijnaldum, Jones, Mane, Minamino, Salah.

Subs: Alisson, Thiago, Firmino, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Origi, Shaqiri, Robertson, Phillips, Alexander-Arnold.

Way stronger than expected. Five first choice regulars in there. Maybe he feels they need a confidence boost ahead of the United game.

They better win now!

Not sure I would be playing Fabinho. I would argue he is our most important player at the minute!

4
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: January 08, 2021, 06:53:23 PM »

Any strategically minded Republicans should be begging Pelosi to impeach immediately and then vote to remove him from office, and lock the lot of the Trump crime family up quicksmart afterwards


 ;D

And you call me a fascist?
Fascism is allowing criminals control the levers of government and continue to roam the streets

Convicting criminals is democracy

I am pro-democracy and pro-justice

I've read more than enough of your posts to know you are anti-democracy, pro-nihilism and pro-fascism

The point is not  whether Trump, his family and his cronies are criminal or not. In my opinion he was a dangerous, racist, bigotted and more than likely criminal bastard. However,  you dont get to decide that, its up to the proper processes. If you cannot see the irony in posting

, "and lock the lot of the Trump crime family up quicksmart " and "I am pro-democracy and pro-justice"

within minutes of each other then that's a mindset that is hard to debate with.
So you agree that he needs to be dealt with

If he's "more than likely a criminal bastard", the appropriate place for those is in prison

I agree he has questions to answer under the justice system. Then, if he is convicted of being criminal he should be dealt with as set out in law. And as I said, in my opinion he is without doubt one of the most hateful men on the planet and I would hope he can be prosecuted through the legal system. But no, i dont agree that he should be locked up because someone on a GAABoard who is such a vehement critic thinks so any more than I think Hilary Clinton should have been locked up because a dangerous, racist, bigotted and more than likely criminal bastard said so in 2016.

My point is more towards your style of "debate". You have had plenty of feuds with people on this Board and while I probably agree with your views on a lot of these issues, in terms of your approach  you are every bit as intolerant of opposing views as some of the Fox News morons. I know very little about USA politics and would be interested in how people form allegiances to various parties over there, how the election works etc. However, this thread has been a car crash throughout probably the most important election in recent memory and in my opinion a lot of that is down to the way you antagonise and polarise people who disagree with you. I'm not planning on entering into a debate with you here about the need for fascism, racism etc etc to be called out. If a  businessman in Iowa votes for Trump because his company is better placed to flourish under Trump's policies than Biden, this does not make him a Nazi, fascist, racist.   As I said I probably agree with you on most of your principles, my issue is with how you approach it and how inevitably it causes any chance of reasonable discussion to descend into a slagging match between you and one of your numerous foes.

5
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: January 08, 2021, 04:14:24 PM »
Muller yoghurts and baby food. The first one I can live without but the second one not so good...

An old "acquaintance" of mine in my university days swore by baby food as a hangover cure. Things like pureed apple, mango etc. Made for an awkward conversation (that was nearly a swift exit) one night when we got home and there were a couple of empty Cow and Gate jars beside her bed!

6
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: January 08, 2021, 04:09:14 PM »

Any strategically minded Republicans should be begging Pelosi to impeach immediately and then vote to remove him from office, and lock the lot of the Trump crime family up quicksmart afterwards


 ;D

And you call me a fascist?
Fascism is allowing criminals control the levers of government and continue to roam the streets

Convicting criminals is democracy

I am pro-democracy and pro-justice

I've read more than enough of your posts to know you are anti-democracy, pro-nihilism and pro-fascism

The point is not  whether Trump, his family and his cronies are criminal or not. In my opinion he was a dangerous, racist, bigotted and more than likely criminal bastard. However,  you dont get to decide that, its up to the proper processes. If you cannot see the irony in posting

, "and lock the lot of the Trump crime family up quicksmart " and "I am pro-democracy and pro-justice"

within minutes of each other then that's a mindset that is hard to debate with.

7
Always hate the Palace away game, maybe itís PTSD from the 2014 game....
Anyway the recent record has been decent enough so hopefully a win tomorrow and be top for Christmas and into the new year.

We've been beating them away repeatedly, but I still always dread it. Always a complete scrap, usually with Liverpool snatching a late win.

Since Klopp came in, we've won every away game against them. Lost his first two against them at Anfield, the latter, under Big Sam, Liverpool's last home league defeat.

Funny the 2014 game didnt really bother me at the time. The league was lost the previous Sunday as far as I was concerned so the fact we were going to lose it on points rather than goal difference was a bit of a "Meh" moment

8
I think Dier went down theatrically looking for it. There was contact from Henderson surely, but he made a meal of it looking a  soft free out and got caught out

Looked like normal jostling, shoulder to shoulder to me. And it had no bearing on Firmino scoring. Would have been ludicrous to disallow the goal for that.

Dont think it was shoulder to shoulder to be fair. Looked like Hendo gave him a "dunt" (to use an old manager's phrase  ;)) in the back. However I agree that it was nt enough to warrant a free, I think Dier realised he had lost Williams and decided to look for the free.

9
That looked offside to me based on the ludicrous hair-splitting they've been engaging in.

Hopefully a sign of things to come given that it was allowed to stand.
Funny how it usually takes a good 5 minutes to determine a Liverpool goal offside but that took less than 30 seconds??!!

Thatís the way it should be though.

If itís a mm or a toe here and there, it should go with the attacker rather than spending minutes trying to figure it out.
I actually prefer the way the Dier handball and the Son offside decisions were dealt with tonight, hopefully a  sign of things for the rest of the season, but just totally inconsistent with the way the rules have been applied up to now.
It took the VAR ones longer to try to rule Bobbys goal out than Sons in....

I read somewhere this morning that the reason the SON decision was taken so quickly was because the reference points for both players were feet planted on the ground there was no need for the 3d correlation, perpendicular lines etc. If that's the case and it was deemed onside so be it.

On the Henderson/Dier coming together I have not yet seen a decent view but it looks like it was deliberate where Henderson ran across Dier's line but he did not grab him. Not sure how Dier ended up on the ground but I have not seen any angle that would definitely warrant a free being awarded. What I would say is that there was definitely less of a case for a free than the Salah "push" before the Fulham goal on Saturday that got looked at for about 10 seconds even though there were multiple angles.

 If that had been chalked off then you would be in the bizarre situation where you would be encouraging defenders to start throwing themselves to the ground in the box at set pieces if they are not directly involved in the contest for the ball just in case a forward is deemed to have contacted them.

Edit: Just saw an aerial shot that looks like Hendo gave him a "bump". Not sure it was enough for the fall though

10
GAA Discussion / Re: The Advanced Mark
« on: December 16, 2020, 11:50:14 AM »
Hate the advanced mark rule with a passion, completely ruins fluidity in the forward line, 90% of the time now players will call a mark if they catch it, even if not in a scoring position because there is maybe a defender right tight to them, its a cop out for a forward they no longer have to beat a man. it has slowed the best part of the game down, nothing better in the game than seeing a corner forward win a ball sell a dummy, turn the man and sail one over the bar. now they just take that mark and set themselves. also the fact that if a forward makes a clean catch and doesn't take a mark but defender cant touch him for basically 4 steps completely takes away the art of defending if a forward gets the ball in front of you, honestly, of all the terrible rules there have been this is by far and away the worst it really has to go

Agree with this. If you dont call the mark immediately you should be fair game

11
GAA Discussion / Re: The Advanced Mark
« on: December 15, 2020, 02:45:33 PM »
A good forward should beat his man to the ball the vast majority of the time assuming the ball in is decent and there is not a notable pace differential. Yes a good defender can try  to mark in front and read the play but the bottomline is that the forward knows where he is going to go next, the defender has to react to the forwards movements, the converse is not as important.

12
Genuine question

Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.

Have most of them not caught it already?

13
Man has interest in money.

That's the headline.

What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!

Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.

You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.

Nonsense.

I think I am checking out on this one. Angelo's issue appears to be that a CEO at a Pharma company is seeking to bring pharma products to market for sale. Its like having an issue with BWW for launching a new car.

Shady automotive industry and all that.... ::)

14


Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......


Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.

I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.

So you dont want a CEO of a pharma company to be allowed to sell shares while they have pharma products in development. Even though all regulatory approvals were met. So he would never be able to sell his shares given how R&D focussed they are.

Who gets to decide when he can sell his shares? You?



15


Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?

I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.

In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.

The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.

But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......


Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.

They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.

Two things.

First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to  not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.

Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108