Jump to content

Stephen Robinson


Recommended Posts



The players are professionals. They do this for a living. They have as much responsibility as the manager.
What means to be professional?   images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB8XeqHIg_ZXJrXfFYqK8wt8Y54JUDOXJF3wZheKVtTOiQGwQbkmH1uUk&s Professionalism involves being reliable, setting your own high standards, and showing that you care about every aspect of your job. It's about being industrious and organized, and holding yourself accountable for your thoughts, words and actions.


You're being a bit disingenuous there by "confusing" two different meanings of "professional". A professional footballer is one who gets paid, it has nothing to do with their actions or attitude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, Slarti said:


 

 


You're being a bit disingenuous there by "confusing" two different meanings of "professional". A professional footballer is one who gets paid, it has nothing to do with their actions or attitude.

 

Both are relevant in the present context IMO. They are paid and therefore professional. That isn’t in doubt. What many are questioning is their attitude and application. In these most seem to be critical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

He'll still get next season to make his own mark on the team. I think that's fair.

 

Not necessarily , it could all be down to the order of the matches after the split . If we were to lose to St Johnstone , if it's the first game and the gap is three points he'll be under big pressure. Just like when Alec Smith was removed in '88 with a couple of games remaining and we won both to stay up , after 4 defeats and a draw in the previous five games !

 

ETA , a lot of folk taking a pop at the players , that season we lost 0-6 at home to Hearts in Feb , and under TF in May we won 1-0 at Tynecastle. In the end personalities don't matter , the welfare of the club matters. 

Edited by billyg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are relevant in the present context IMO. They are paid and therefore professional. That isn’t in doubt. What many are questioning is their attitude and application. In these most seem to be critical. 
You said they are professionals (as in paid) and then gave a definition of "professionalism" which was totally unrelated. Deliberate or not, it incorrectly conflated the two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slarti said:
8 minutes ago, Rascal said:
Both are relevant in the present context IMO. They are paid and therefore professional. That isn’t in doubt. What many are questioning is their attitude and application. In these most seem to be critical. 

You said they are professionals (as in paid) and then gave a definition of "professionalism" which was totally unrelated. Deliberate or not, it incorrectly conflated the two.

Thanks deliberate, but I wouldn’t suggest conflated. Others seem to be questioning attitude and actions e.g. downing tools. I’m not. I’m suggesting that they are not showing the qualities required of someone who is paid to do the job. They seem not to be listening to their manager, nor showing any ability to be self critical in order to make improvement. Others are arguing that the manager is unable to be professional other than in lifting a wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, billyg said:

Not necessarily , it could all be down to the order of the matches after the split . If we were to lose to St Johnstone , if it's the first game and the gap is three points he'll be under big pressure. Just like when Alec Smith was removed in '88 with a couple of games remaining and we won both to stay up , after 4 defeats and a draw in the previous five games !

Agree with what you have posted but we have to start picking points up asap. The constant statement of 2 points off 7th is all good and well but we are in a shocking run of form and to me anyway in his interview on sky, Robinson looked a defeated man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks deliberate, but I wouldn’t suggest conflated. Others seem to be questioning attitude and actions e.g. downing tools. I’m not. I’m suggesting that they are not showing the qualities required of someone who is paid to do the job. They seem not to be listening to their manager, nor showing any ability to be self critical in order to make improvement. Others are arguing that the manager is unable to be professional other than in lifting a wage.
You're the one who posted the definition of "professionalism" to answer your own question, "What means to be professional?", after using the same word (professional) to mean they are paid to play football. You say it was deliberate, so you were, on purpose, trying to link the two definitions which means you were attempting to conflate them in what was a disingenuous manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Slarti said:
40 minutes ago, Rascal said:
Thanks deliberate, but I wouldn’t suggest conflated. Others seem to be questioning attitude and actions e.g. downing tools. I’m not. I’m suggesting that they are not showing the qualities required of someone who is paid to do the job. They seem not to be listening to their manager, nor showing any ability to be self critical in order to make improvement. Others are arguing that the manager is unable to be professional other than in lifting a wage.

You're the one who posted the definition of "professionalism" to answer your own question, "What means to be professional?", after using the same word (professional) to mean they are paid to play football. You say it was deliberate, so you were, on purpose, trying to link the two definitions which means you were attempting to conflate them in what was a disingenuous manner.

Not disengenuously. Straightforwardly. Both conditions need to be met

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not disengenuously. Straightforwardly. Both conditions need to be met
You know, this is why people think you talk shit about your past "importance". You are either too inept to realise your errors or you are too obstinate to admit them. Neither are qualities which would be desirable in someone who hobnobs with ambassadors for a living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slarti said:
21 minutes ago, Rascal said:
Not disengenuously. Straightforwardly. Both conditions need to be met

You know, this is why people think you talk shit about your past "importance". You are either too inept to realise your errors or you are too obstinate to admit them. Neither are qualities which would be desirable in someone who hobnobs with ambassadors for a living.

I like Hobnobs. Ambassadors are just a bunch of free loading cnuts. I wouldn’t give them the steam aff ma pish.

46247A28-07C5-442F-A1A3-1662E82ACD79.jpeg.ae004cc2550bfc1454efdbf0dbf2fa56.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Slarti said:
5 hours ago, Rascal said:
Not disengenuously. Straightforwardly. Both conditions need to be met

You know, this is why people think you talk shit about your past "importance". You are either too inept to realise your errors or you are too obstinate to admit them. Neither are qualities which would be desirable in someone who hobnobs with ambassadors for a living.

No. It means that we interpret this differently. Nothing unusual there. Happens a lot on the forum between many people.

Importance? I got paid for the jobs I did like anyone else. I enjoyed them. I got to travel a lot. I got to meet a lot of interesting people from the top to the bottom of organisations.
 

I was lucky but important, no! It was important to me though to help make a lasting difference to their prospects and those of their organisations, particularly for those at the bottom. 
 

Forget that I was lucky to travel well, stay in good hotels and see a lot of places I would never have seen. It wasn’t my purpose. As someone who doesn’t drink alcohol, the Ambassadors, High Commissioners events weren’t enjoyable for me as most people seemed to think it was an opportunity to get hammered.

What was great was the terrific individual kindnesses of people I met at all levels. That was truly humbling.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It means that we interpret this differently. Nothing unusual there. Happens a lot on the forum between many people.
Importance? I got paid for the jobs I did like anyone else. I enjoyed them. I got to travel a lot. I got to meet a lot of interesting people from the top to the bottom of organisations.
 
I was lucky but important, no! It was important to me though to help make a lasting difference to their prospects and those of their organisations, particularly for those at the bottom. 
 
Forget that I was lucky to travel well, stay in good hotels and see a lot of places I would never have seen. It wasn’t my purpose. As someone who doesn’t drink alcohol, the Ambassadors, High Commissioners events weren’t enjoyable for me as most people seemed to think it was an opportunity to get hammered.
What was great was the terrific individual kindnesses of people I met at all levels. That was truly humbling.
 
 
There's no interpretation required. You said that they are "professionals" and that they do this "for a living" (one, valid, definition of "professional"), then went on to ask and answer what it meant to be professional by using a definition of "professionalism" (another valid definition) but one which was totally unrelated to your first use of the word. Whether it was ineptitude or deliberate obfuscation, I don't know (though you said it was deliberate), but you're definitely being obstinate, so that's the last I'm saying about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hendo said:

Ooh, someone's been on a management course.

No, a patronising course.

verb: patronise
  1. 1.
    treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority.
    "she was determined not to be put down or patronized"
     
    Similar:
    treat condescendingly
treat with condescension
condescend to
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the teams that have beaten us on this poor run are top six sides.
Not the easiest set of fixtures, and cup quarter final, to face coming up to the split. 
Just saying. :rolleyes:

I recognise obviously the poor run

Losing 8 from 9 ?

New guy has brought nothing to us, nothing at all and taking us from such a great position to where we are is unacceptable

That said, thankfully due to the strong position Goodwin left us in, I genuinely don’t remotely think we will be involved in relegation trouble

Genuinely can’t see why all the fuss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott-Leeds said:


I recognise obviously the poor run

Losing 8 from 9 ?

New guy has brought nothing to us, nothing at all and taking us from such a great position to where we are is unacceptable

That said, thankfully due to the strong position Goodwin left us in, I genuinely don’t remotely think we will be involved in relegation trouble

Genuinely can’t see why all the fuss

It's all subjective to say what we'd have done under Goodwin as he had already had his poor run earlier in the season. 

Well, we are now playing tems of a similar standard, I'd judge him after these games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody stole your "identity", apologies. 
You're still a negative Norman at times. 

I’ve found lots of people on Facebook with my full name, but almost entirely in America

I have zero desire for social media

Anyway, moving on…

I see 3 wins minimum in last 5 fixtures

Sorry it’s one 60% positive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...