RicoS321

Are we doing the whole not signing players while there's not a long term manager in place again? Horrendous approach. Are we seriously going to displace another first team player for a loanee?

We're more of a "jobby in the post" nation.

We're not in control of anywhere, hence climate change and the sixth mass extinction. We definitely will not be colonising other worlds, it's not remotely possible and we'd run out of resources trying. Indeed, once we reach the point where the resources we need require more energy to extract than they return then there is no further modernity. That will be it, forever. Our fossil fuels were a one-time bonanza. The 1% are no more in charge of the technological system than you are I.

Only if it involves the Huns paying money. They've not paid for Barron or Cameron I don't think.

It's the strategy etc. identity or some pish. The inverted wingers is a function of the signings though. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Keskinen hits the byline far more often on his wrong foot, and he's the closest we've got to a winger. Milanovic and Bilalovic are fast, but not over ten yards. Karlsson doss exactly the same thing every time, and has zero pace whatsoever, and it's quite unbelievable that he's ever been able to play on the wing (or as part of a team). Playing out from the back is absolutely fine. It just needs the correct blend of when to do so and when not to. It makes sense from the point of view of drawing the opponent out and retaining possession. It makes no sense when the opposition are in shape and pressing. We seem to have instituted it as a fundamental at a high level, and associated it with "entertainment". It ignores player ability. It also ignores the far bigger problem of pitch quality for large parts of the season. Our goalies always start off being able to kick accurately, which mysteriously tails off after November. It's very hard to pick a forty yard pass on a bobbly pitch in rainy conditions. That never gets acknowledged in our playing out from the back utopia.

It is. Clarkson, as it stands, will be here next season. If he's playing every week, the dynamic changes significantly, and the change of management might see to it that he is. Although I suspect we might not find out, because we'll quickly discover that him and Cameron in the same side will struggle and he'll make way for the Hun loanee. If Cameron does very well for us between now and summer then he's good enough for the Hun squad, just as Barron was. If he's anything less than very good then the price that it'll cost to get him won't be worth it. If they think for a second that he might be an advantage to us, then they'll accept a bid from some championship fodder from down south instead, without the slightest regard for the player. The chances of us wanting, and getting, Cameron next season are exceedingly slim.

Nonsense, Clarkson is under contract, Cameron isn't. The only way we get Cameron is if he's average in his time with us. If he's good or very good, the Huns keep him. There is no upside beyond his performances in the short time he's here. It's not a direct competition between Clarkson, Armstrong and Cameron. But, if we want to get the best out of Clarkson, then he plays behind Shinnie and Aouchiche. If we want the best out of Armstrong, then he plays ahead of two sitting where Cameron is. Due to Thelin's setup, Armstrong has barely played any minutes in the role he'd suit best, and now Cameron comes in and prevents that further. Playing him further back is a big mistake. I'm not convinced that both Clarkson and Cameron will cope on the pitch at once in the SPFL, and I think we'll see one dropping out in due course. I think we should have brought in a midfielder to get the best out of the ones already there, rather than another one very similar in style.

I'd have thought that as a Scot, you'd be a bit reticent to equate North America to the US! It's like being called English. The Canada part being fairly significant when discussing Greenland. Trump will almost certainly view Canada as the next logical acquisition (because it is) if Greenland is not fought for. With their capturing of Venezuelan heavy oil, it would certainly make the acquisition easier.

Clarkson began to struggle in the number 10 role as teams put a man on him and he didn't have the physical attributes to cope in a difficult role. I think we'll see exactly the same in Cameron in the coming weeks, where teams will press him and turn it over. That happened on numerous occasions today, but Doc in commentary clearly was a little biased and didn't pick it up. Your point stands though, there's absolutely nothing Cameron did today that Clarkson couldn't in that role. Similarly Armstrong. We've essentially brought a guy in and are giving him an opportunity that we're not affording our own. It's frustrating.

That was terrible. Is wouldn't trust Leven to take us forward on that showing. Some very average players on show, and we lined up badly. There is no room for Cameron and Armstrong in that side, it has to be one of the other. We've brought in a six month loanee to take the place of a guy with 2.5 years remaining. The onus should be on playing Armstrong in the correct position in my opinion, with Cameron as backup, or just get rid of Armstrong altogether. He's not here to be a sub at his age. Karlsson dogshite when he came on and needs to go back ASAP. Cameron did well, but he'll struggle in that role against better opposition I think. He didn't look totally fit. His corners were good, but as others have said are no better than Clarkson's, who's only had two games and put in some decent balls. That goal today doesn't get scored against a premier team, so I don't think it's a good barometer. Good to get through, and hopefully we have a manager and some players in shortly

We signed him permanently in the summer

That midfield three has been completely overrun. Cameron been okay, but I don't see why we've signed him. Armstrong clearly wants to be in that position, so he's been shunted back to a role where he's a fucking liability. Clarkson already needs one mobile and strong midfielder alongside him, the three lightweights together is just - very obviously - fucking ridiculous. It has to be Aouchiche and Shinnie plus one other in the SPFL. You need legs through that centre. Or aggression. Cameron or Armstrong or Clarkson, not two and definitely not three.

Aye. That and a daughter in hospital. But mainly the Hun.

Are you thinking McCowan? Cameron plays number 10. As Tony Docherty just said, 30 yards from goal is his area.

Having to watch this on the telly today. @Panda, what's the purpose of having McFadden in the studio? He'll have seen plenty of Raith with his championship coverage, but they've also got Murray for that. When asked "What's going wrong at Aberdeen?", he doesn't have the slightest clue. Just the tired pish about us "heavily investing in the team" and other shite.

He doesn't play in Shinnie's position

No it isn't. Well, not according to the maps our governments let us see. Perhaps you have different ones.

It'll be inverted I expect. Both wingers have been bought because that is their strength. I actually think Keskinen is much better on the left anyway. Ironically he seems more likely to hit the byline on his weaker foot than when he's on the right. Milanovic doesn't look like a winger at all, so might as well let him cut inside because he isn't fast.

Jesus, that's one hell of a lightweight midfield. Wild. The dirty Hun starting so that it's harder to boo him (as opposed to when coming on as a sub). I could see us fucking this one up if we don't get an early goal. Interesting Knoester is out, I wonder if it's just resting? Polvara good on his left side, so not an issue.

I don't have to look at any bigger picture to see the effects of tariffs, which is what the poster is talking about. None of the points you make have anything to do with tariffs, or what @Jupiter originally stated. He said: Which is correct. You've taken that post as some sort of attack on the performance of the US economy, and responded to an entirely different point. You've then questioned where people get their news from, as if he (or me) was wrong. Why is it important for some? Probably, because Trump is using tariffs to bypass US democracy, from your perspective, and he's using them as a tool to bully other humans in the world rather than negotiate in good faith from the perspective of elsewhere. Including for the purposes of annexing a NATO ally. If I was in Yankee Doodle land, and cared about Nations and governments, I wouldn't be remotely concerned whether they made me money or not (they don't), I'd be disgusted by those two glaring points. I'm not in yankland, nor do I care about Nations and their governments, so I don't care in the slightest. I do prefer to see accuracy in a discussion though, and the etiquette of staying on point. Otherwise how does anyone know anything?

I don't really care, but I think that isn't correct. I don't even think 2.7% is the lowest since Trump got into office. However, inflation doesn't necessarily tie in with tariffs anyway. That would be dependent on the items in the basket of goods being imported from a tariffed country. It is entirely correct that tariffs are paid by the US consumer. The offset to that is not the trillions brought in by foreign trade, obviously. It would be the money spent within the US (US consumers buying US made goods) that was previously spent on imports. If I am in the US buying timber from France and it suddenly gets a 25% tariff, then I buy from the usually more expensive US supplier for example. France doesn't suddenly buy US timber too, because the price of French timber for French people doesn't incur the tariff. The direct effect of the tariff is a cost to the US consumer, the offset being a potential increase in tax take from the resulting sale in the US. Does that make sense (genuine question, I'm going through the logic in my own head!)?

If there's an agreement in writing then the club tells its fans, for obvious reasons. If there's no agreement in writing then a scum gentlemen's agreement is worth absolutely fuck all. If he plays well enough to get into their squad, he's in, and any agreement with us is done. If he doesn't then we've just had a pish player for a few months. He'd have to be really good to make the move worthwhile for even a short term perspective. A guy that wins us 3-4 games with his creativity or goals. In a way that Armstrong, Aouchiche or Clarkson wouldn't. Whilst ensuring that at least one of those is sidelined. You're not wrong about it being a position we don't need either. Who in the world thought that we were crying out for a lightweight, flashy midfielder?

I would argue that Martindale hasn't been mentioned because he's basically Livingston FC. But, yes, it's entirely superficial with him to, he's clearly a good manager. The only doubts I'd have with Martindale are his abilities in setting up to play football rather than not to lose games (although I think he's largely answered those last season and to an extent this), but also work in a role where he doesn't have control over recruitment and all other aspects (fixing the bogs etc). I'd have Martindale over Robinson for example. Both Martindale and McGlynn will likely be better managers than many of the "foreign", "young and hungry" types that we seem to employ because they fit one of those categories rather than their ability. We're back round to the elder statesman in the managerial merry-go-round I expect, and so McGlynn would largely be welcomed. Martindale won't be mentioned for the obvious football reasons above (I'd hope nobody is still harbouring something over his previous convictions), but many will look at the superficial reasons too.

But "lower league vibes" is just superficial pish. Like Steve Clarke being dour and stubborn. His record speaks for itself out with hearts, he's clearly a decent manager. Jack Ross, Russell Martin etc all come across as modern, intelligent "professionals", but anyone who's worked in any organisation anywhere knows that has little to no bearing on how they perform. Image is basically worthless. Indeed, it's often the sign of a charlatan. That he doesn't subscribe to any of that pish is a good thing.

You're not really booing the player himself though, it's a public display of anger at the decision to get one of their players ready for first team football. There isn't another way that will satisfactorily show the disgust. A banner doesn't cut it. It needs to be heard, and discussed on the radio/telly. It's just a very obvious protest, and unfortunately for the young laddie, he'll just have to be on the receiving end of it. He did choose the Huns after fucking off the club that raised him. He's basically Connor Barron. The club needs to be held to account, and it needs to be public. I never boo the team at half-time or full-time, or if they pass the ball backwards for the ninetieth time. I'll happily boo this lad, because it's a protest that the club needs to hear, and I'm comfortable that it's not remotely Hunnish to do so in those circumstances. The tone deafness is unbelievable. The club strategy was to be working towards regularly getting into Europe with a view to pushing the scum all the way. I could almost understand the acceptance that came with the signings of Scales and Christie. We were way off the Tims in terms of budget and points, regularly, with the knowledge that they could just up their spending by a factor of ten if they felt threatened. The Huns are not at that same level though, not even close. They're a good team, with a well salaried first eleven, but beyond that there isn't much to be feared. It seems bizarre that we'd choose to try to close the gap by improving their squad, even in the short term. Of course, we know we're in a bad place and it's only really about optics, but those are important too. It also questions the ability of our recruitment team. Is this really the best they can come up with? An unavailable player? Who plays in a role, and in a way, that we're not short in? Or have we made the catastrophic decision that we have to wait for the new manager before signing anyone, therefore being behind in another window? Has Cormack still not learned from the Hornby, Hendry, Kamberi debacle?