Matthew Le God

Going from Brentford in the Championship and Rangers in the Scottish 2nd tier is a huge jump to a top half Premier League side packed full of international players. He has no track record working at such a level and would be a big risk, plus a drop in pulling power. Mark Warburton is 53 years old, he is relatively new to being a manager but he is not young. He is older than Koeman.

He also has never managed a top flight team in any country, never worked with large numbers of internationals and he doesn't have the pulling power in the transfer market remotely close to Koeman. He would be a high risk appointment given his lack of track record at a high level.

Koeman said today Bertrand is back in normal training next Monday, Clasie will be a little longer. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20150910-team-news-west-bromwich-albion-southampton-2679716.aspx

Bertrand took some part in training today, back in full training on Monday... Clasie will be a little longer.

Would be helpful if the journalists knew current issues about the squad. For example asking about Clasie & Bertrand's return or how Koeman views Ramirez.

Perhaps... Its all making sense now... But then this confuses things...

That is a ridiculously hypothetical question. Ok, yes I would. Then I'd use my position to bring about the ending the monarchy and the start of a republic from a position of influence, but I'd also keep the wealth, land and property as assets of the family after the monarchy is abolished.

Why should she have been in that position of influence at such a high level of this country? She was born into it, she didn't earn it. Her husband is a walking time bomb of racist remarks and she took the decision to marry him.

You've won the thread with that retort. It really helped further your case.

There are benefits to the monarchy, I don't deny that. But my main objection is the principle of descendants of successful warlords through fluke of birth, regardless of ability being in a position of power and influence within our country. We aren't truly democratic until the monarchy is gone and the second house reformed into a proper democratic system. That is a ridiculous analogy. Being born British doesn't mean you are born into a position of constitutional power and influence. The Prime Minister is never going to ask you if they can form a government, and why... because you weren't born into the royal family.

So its just longevity you find remarkable, not anything she has actually done. Just that she has lived a long time. How is that an achievement? You say "hardly a mistake", but can you provide an example of the type of thing she could possibly have done that you would have labelled as a mistake?

How do you know for certain her mental condition? In any case, her family has had hundreds of years to learn how to bring up children in such an environment. I really don't think its a big achievement to be one of the most privileged humans in history.

The main thrust of your counter argument keeps coming back to money. As I said in post #23... Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

Mythical fairy stories are for bed time master Fry.

What has she done well that is so remarkable? What kind of things would she had to have done for you not to consider her reign conducted well? Its a pretty difficult "job" to screw up.

Fantastic at doing what? She is the head of state, but what does she actually do well?

I'm sure the millions of pounds of state aid help her cope with the nightmarish existence she is clearly enduring.

Wouldn't it be better if we appoint "ambassador" for the country on merit? Even if were true that she is a good one (I'm yet to see what she is actually good at), that is no guarantee any of her descendants will be, yet due to it being monarchy they get the job regardless of their level of competance.

I did.

Does she really deserve praise for what is essentially just... living a long time?

Normally because the referee bottles it and takes what seems to be the easy option of only one yellow card. Footballers, managers, pundits and fans then think this is the norm and how the rules should play out, but it is actually down to the ref not doing as he should.

Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

You get royals (like Prince Charles) using their status "achieved" through fluke of birth to lobby and attempt to influence politicians on hundreds of occasions over the last 40 years. Would he do it if he didn't have some success? That is a terrible analogy. I didn't say the individuals should be removed from society. I think the way this country chooses its head of state should be democratic. I don't care if its 1p, 50p or £200, we shouldn't be subsidising their lifestyle because they have warlord ancestors who fought their way to power. They have income streams from other sources they could use instead of the taxpayer.

Technically she still has power, just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if she did. She is also funded by the taxpayer.

It shouldn't even be her... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru024qcTpaA