RicoS321

It's military pish. A day set aside for playing at sudjers. Not sure how it translates to its modern day equivalent. I'm guessing it'd be like a day free of consequences perhaps?

Nice one, thanks. I'll check out A M Smith like. I like the sleepers for convenience, but reckon the wife would prefer the steens, as they do look cracking. Probably a similar size bed in my garden like, although we've got a fairly big front garden too if I ever get round to it. I'll likely start and give up half way!

Stunning garden Elgin, love to do similar masel. Far did you get her steens? Did you build the dyke yersel and how much earth did you need for the borders? I've just got a shit ton of bland grass, and I really need to dig up at least a third of it for planting. I like the wall idea, as it'd save digging up grass, o could just earth over it.

Fuck that. Why would we let the best manager we've had in 25 years, with 2 years left on his contract, go for less than £6M?

Yep, very reasonable, it's a shame we only ever get half the story. I think I remember reading it was one or two days to get tests back. Remember, Hibs didn't get tests returned in time for a pre-season game to go ahead? In retrospect, I think you're right, perhaps 4 game ban wouldn't be that unreasonable because if the games hadn't been cancelled then that's the number of games they could have missed (3 in the dons case, but there are some 14 day periods that have 4 matches). Hopefully they'll sort out the time it takes for future offences as, had the games gone ahead then the players could have faced missing 7 matches in total which would seem mental. You'd think that the rules would have been drilled into the players, but that clearly wasn't the case at AFC, given Johnny Hayes explanation. You wonder if the testing part and match day and training protocols have been drilled in, but they didn't pay much attention to the out of office guidelines, which would be basically the same for all of us. They'll definitely be aware of them now.

He's reassuring, without actually saying anything reassuring. I don't trust him. Seemed to quickly turn into a politician when asked difficult questions on the radio a few months back. He suffers from the same issue as most in that the questions he gets asked are shite, so he doesn't have to answer with any particular insight, which is not his fault at all of course. In the Aberdeen case, I've heard both him state that the rules were clear, but not once has either fully articulated those rules and how they were broken. Nor were they asked to, of course. The questions I'd like him to respond to: Which rules were broken? What caused the cancellation of the games? What would be different in genuine cases of covid that were not detected until after training had resumed that week (say Thursday)?

Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were saying they were lying, I was asking if that's what you were saying - that wasn't clear. I assumed that the club's protocol that was broken was the four households rule. Or, more simply, breaking of a general public lockdown rule - by default - is a breach of club protocol (hence the previous case didn't break it). Some good points there though, I hadn't considered they might ask a series of questions about where players had been. That would suggest that the players either lied about it, which I find unlikely, or the person asking the questions failed to pick up that 8 players responded the same (in which case the club would have made the additional suggested return to training error, not the players). That it took until the Thursday isn't surprising to me, as that would have been when the test results were returned. Listening to Hayes' interview, the suggestion was that the players hadn't considered what they'd done was incorrect until that point. The fact he was given that platform on the club's YouTube channel suggests that the club believe that account and that there was no attempt by the players to cover anything up. What is clear, is that it really isn't that clear! That's the bit I find the most frustrating. Nobody on here seems to know, yet have been fairly scathing despite that. The only offence we can be certain of is fairly minor. If they lied to the club, that turns it into something different. If the club have fucked up then we need to know too. However, more importantly, if the only breach was the 4 household rule then it appears the protocols in place would never, and could never mitigate for a genuine covid case, alternatively, the cancelling of games was a punitive measure. It has to be one of those two things.

Thanks, that makes sense. So how does that differ from normal then? If three groups of three had gone to different Aberdeen nightspots and two had contracted covid, what would happen? What's the difference between broken rules covid and non-broken-rules covid? I don't see how multiple covid cases can be handled within the protocols? Just to get this correct, the players were tested and two returned positive for covid. At this point this could have been a "normal" case of covid. One that could have been picked up before Saturday's game (when all 8 players would have been together), so the same measures would surely have taken place either way? The bubble they work in is broken every game surely? Just to be clear, are you saying that the players lied about being out together? Or that the club lied about it?

No I'm not. I said the punishment is being made up as they go along, not the crime. The club have stated that they broke the four households rule (which is the same for everyone). Nobody has suggested any further breaking of the rules. Are you happy that is the only rule that has been broken, or have you got evidence of other rules being broken (I'm more than happy to change my position if I'm wrong)? Working on the basis that I, and the club, are correct then the breaking of the four households rule in and of itself did not cause the two players to get covid, agreed (they could have gone in to three different restaurants or in three separate tables in the same place and caught it)? I'm not trying to legitimise what the players did, they clearly broke the rules, I'm saying that the rule break is reasonably minor and one which many people in the UK will have broken to a greater or lesser degree themselves. It comes with its own ready-made punishment with 14 days isolation, missing of games and on top a deserved club fine and I would suggest that the SPFL add in a minimum 3 games missed for anyone in breach of the rules to even things up (in case players in isolation miss two games, where some miss three). The point I was making was regarding the Scottish government's intervention. First, the reaction to the Aberdeen players was way over the top, to the point of hysteria. It called for a measured response that took into account the gravity of the crime. That way when far worse rule breaking occurs, in the case of bolingoli, you have the ability to step up the criticism where required to recognise more serious breaches. The AFC offence could have been used positively to show a small breach can have a big impact. That's what I'd expect from a leader like Sturgeon. Her actual reaction is what I'd expect from Johnson. I accept that is also a minor criticism and new territory for the government. Second, was the cancellation of games. I can forgive the st Johnstone game, the government were caught by surprise, late notice etc. What happened after that showed that punishments were being dished out by the government rather than SPFL and that they were being made up on the hoof. That, for me, sets a ridiculous precedent that could see the cancellation of the season if continued. There is no scientific difference between a person who has caught covid because of a breach of rules and one who's caught it normally. We were led to believe that the testing and protocols in place would allow players to get covid and not result in cancellations. The cancellations suggest that is not the case. The lack of cancellation of the Kilmarnock game after bolingoli played in the prior game suggests it's being made up on the hoof. I think that state intervention into fitba's punitive measures should have us all concerned if that was the case. Which is it? Do you know? If you're going to make up rules, then you need to expect that these rules will be breached. What to do when those breaches occur should have been strategised as soon as the rules were made, not made up on the fly. It reeks.

Fuck all, they're making it up as they go along. Certainly the punishment aspect. The Scottish government setting some strange precedents which I can only see them having to row back on, or risk shelving fitba to save face. For example, the cancellation of Celtic's game and the dons v Hamilton and the dons v tims. Those appear to be punitive rather than based in science. I'm not sure why the Scottish government is dictating punishment for the Scottish game. If it's not punitive, then the game is in serious trouble. That would mean that a player getting covid is enough to cause the cancellation of a fixture. That will kill the season. I don't understand it at all.

"It would never be my intention to cause any deliberate upset or harm" Written by the editor of the sun? Has he read his own newspaper? The fact that headline made it into someone's head is bad enough. Maybe a bit of dark humour between close friends? Probably not even then, that's horrendous. Edit: how the fuck do you get rid of quotes you started on a previous reply on Android? They seem to remain in perpetuity on the thread. Mods? Mods?

I think a lot would have depended on the run in which never happened. Knocked out in the semi and a third place finish, I think you're right. A final appearance, I think would have been enough for him. But unless Cormack had got his shite together very quickly, it would have been a terrible decision. There's nothing coming out of the club to me that suggests we're remotely prepared for a change of manager. It just surprises me that, despite knowing that it would be a stupid decision to bin him now, so many people are suggesting it one game into the season. To me, it lacks rationality. It's like folk can only see one part of the evidence (performances) and ignore the rest, and I think it let Milne off the hook for 20 years and will do again with Cormack. Edit: totally agree about the contract. Although, I've only seen varying internet claims of its value, and I'm not sure I'd believe them.

Exactly this. It would be typical of the way the SPFL run things. Except the reason is probably the reverse of what you're suggesting. They probably think that the Tim deserves a punishment for flying to Spain and feel that they can't punish a scum player without applying the same to the dons, despite the offences being night and day in their gravity. All this should have been sorted out up front as you say. Be nice to see the lineup with eight missing though.

I think it is the job of anyone publicly suggesting that someone else get fired from their job, that they at least address the issues that raises. You don't have to pick the next manager, but you have to accept that by calling for a change in manager you need to understand the entire picture. Also, if you're calling for a change of manager but believe it's not a good time to do it, then why not leave it until you think it is? I'd be intrigued to know if anyone actually thinks that now is a good time to be binning a manager? You're completely right to bring up the youth team and the style of play, but I don't understand why that has to wait for a new manager (nor do we have to wait to change the role). Cormack needs to implement goals and strategies now that force McInnes to address both. If we don't do it now, this season, then what chance do we have of implementing it well when we get a new manager?

That'd be fucking ludicrous. Unless they're giving the Tim a 48 match ban. They broke a non-fitba rule, it's up to the club to discipline them as they see fit.

McInnes got us to two finals, our best points return ever and - I think - our best goals tally ever whilst finishing second. He then took us backward. I like Ross (even as a st Mirren player, he always spoke well), but I think tup perhaps has a point about the Hun and I think any success would be short lived for Ross as it has been for McInnes. I think it's difficult to sustain that "best of the rest" level, which I think bodes well when the scum eventually fuck off.

Probably about right, but what have the club done to prevent the appointment of the next JC? Are we in a position as a club to pay the manager several hundred thousand pounds to go and replace with someone who we won't be doing the same to in 18 months time? Why are we not learning from the biggest mistake we made when getting rid of Calderwood? Getting rid of McInnes is simply a bad business decision at present. We're playing behind closed doors and he currently has his hand in everything the club do. It's not acceptable for people to just say "sack the manager", they have to explain the other parts of the equation too or they can have zero complaints about the Mark McGhee coming next.

You forgot about his preference shares that were to come due on the sale of Pittodrie But that's as much McInnes' fault as it is mine for buying a season ticket.

Well, aye, but also given that we've got a new board, they'd probably like to give the guy a set of targets, some new ways of doing things and an appropriate opportunity to perform in those conditions. If he fails then he is paid off in the final year of his contract with some form of gardening leave offer. Does anyone really think the club is any fit state to be changing manager right now? Seriously? Do they think a new manager will have the right level of support and the right conditions behind the scene to get anywhere beyond the initial new manager bounce phase? Ayrshire's point about McInnes' recruitment is correct (although he's made a profit for the club, in total, in the years he's been here, so the nonsense about bankruptcy is - nonsense), but it spectacularly misses the point. We need to be taking recruitment away from the manager to a large degree. The club needs to have a network of people and an in-house team that are knowledgeable and skilled enough to do the vast majority of recruitment work, with the manager providing the final say and using their knowledge of individual players on the odd occasion. We can't have a system that relies on "well eh, I know Jaap" or "Derek's mates wi' Jody Morris, ken?", or Broon's ex-Scotland mates (Naysmith) or..... nah, there isn't a single player in world football who liked Mark McGhee. If a manager is at a club for more than a couple of years (McInnes) then their past experience of players is out of date and shouldn't be relied upon. If our club's scouting network thought Gleeson and Forrester were players then we've got bigger issues that will persist after McInnes is gone. In my opinion, we need Cormack to get the club into a good position for the next manager coming in before McInnes leaves. Christ, I've been on about succession planning since before McGhee joined, so I hope to fuck Cormack sees it (I think he does). There's a lot more to a club than just the manager, and we can't keep going from giving one manager all the power, to giving the next guy all the power, to the next guy and so on in perpetuity. Let's get our house in order first so McInnes can have no excuses and we don't face the next Mark McGhee straight after him.

It is a shitfest of fucks. But you're right, it has a lot of good stuff on it. You just need a very good filter, and reading around 90% of the comments on any individual thread suggests that a lot of folk don't. You're statement that "every weak cunt wants to be offended" is exactly how I'd have categorised most of the comments I see on Twitter. I find it difficult to get through the swathes of pish and hysteria to get to the good bits, but I've generally nae tried hard enough. I'd have actually put Bowie getting pelters for his tweet in the category of people wanting to be offended. The photaes, indicative of the unnecessary voyeurism (me included) of the modern individual.

I'm guessing he deleted his tweet because of the pelters he was receiving, rather than its content, along with the fact that circumstances have significantly changed over night. Lack of prescience isn't a huge crime, neither making a poor attempt at humour. If he'd tweeted at 9am this morning, then understandable that he'd get pelters. I don't think it was a good example of cuntishness on this occasion, but as you say, makes it interesting! I don't think posting pictures of a train on fire is particularly responsible, given that it hasn't appeared in news outlets. I'm guessing that there are protocols that even the scummiest of rags adhere to before posting that type of thing, such as checking with local authorities to see if loved ones have been informed and so on. If you were the son or daughter of the train driver seeing that picture before any contact was made then you'd pretty much know/assume that your parent has died, similarly if a relative is a passenger. Random on the internet in a race to get the first picture out isn't something that should get someone in trouble, but it lacks sensitivity and I'd expect that person to be called out. It's just a far more thoughtless and insensitive act than Bowie's fairly innocuous tweet, that's all. To be clear, I'm not criticising you posting it on here, where the audience is far more limited, and the post already out on a larger platform, but Twitter is a shitfest of fucks.

Much as I despise the cunt, seems a little harsh given he wrote it last night. I would think that whoever posted those pictures of the train crash should likely be in line for far more pelters than the Tory cunt.

In what way?

Here's a fine starting point from last year: http://nautil.us/blog/omniviolence-is-coming-and-the-world-isnt-ready

Agreed. I think you should start a thread to get some ideas going!