RicoS321

Snelder's shadow was twice the 'keeper that Michael Watt was.

They didnae come East of portlethen. Cunts.

ITV apparently were/felt obliged not to show the documentary before the election because of the rules around impartiality. It seems bizarre that the truth - and you have to assume that ITV believe in the documentary that they are airing - can be subject to partiality rules. I missed the crowd-funding round for this particular documentary of his, but he's usually spot on. Was out last night, so will have to get it on catch up. Big fan of his books and films.

They provided a costed manifesto. The UK is a sovereign country with a sovereign currency, it's economically illiterate to suggest they would bankrupt themselves.

Not really "hard left" though is it? The manifesto was left of centre, broadly socialist. About as hard left as Norway or Finland. I suspect a good few of the policies were well liked too. Except we didn't really hear people (as in the public) talk about policy in the election campaign.

Nah. We lost by ~385K. And you've assumed that all 350K voted, rather than the 85% that applied to the rest of the electorate. In reality, we'd have had around 300K actually voting, with 270K of those voting No and 30K Yes. Still 145K short. If we'd prevented Aberdeenshire from voting then we'd have probably faired just as well.

That's really sad. I had high hopes for him this season.

The problem is that they'd only last a single inconsequential broadcast before being hooked. The easiest way to ensure compliance is to employ people who are average, or at least think that they are average. That way, not only do you get the deference aspect when talking to "Prime Minister/Your Majesty/Mr Speaker/Sir/Your Honour/etc", you also get a person who is reliant on you for their employment. Nobody with the "fuck it, I'm ace, I'll just get a job elsewhere". Those that do have the confidence are dicks like Piers Morgan or some such who benefit directly from the society in which they design. You've answered your own question I suppose. Zuckerberg will do what will return him money and power. He showed his integrity and colours when he stole Facebook in the first place. When someone came along requesting social oppression in return for money and power, the moral and ethical mechanisms didn't kick in to make him question it because they don't exist in him. Although, in fairness, likes of CA would have passed well below his paygrade, but the ethics of profit before privacy/morals/integrity would have been ingrained in the business model and the employees at the level of authority required would have known what to do when approached with this type of offer. But our system is designed to reward yer Zuckerbergian fuck-sticks. They are the barometer of success rather than excess.

Thon's a good quote. People like me have the tendency to assume that this generation is the first to experience this level of media interference, but it's nae. The interference is the same, with the same results, but the delivery vehicle of social media is just different. Same as it ever was.

I think that would have been the case given his position in the club at the time. It would be a bit crazy to think he wasn't. I think the important question is whether Cormack will give him a free ride or not and I suspect he won't (in the same way as Milne would). Will he put in the type of performance measurements that really challenge McInnes in terms of his return in the transfer market and his style of play and so on? The good thing is that there are clear areas for improvement that should be obvious to anyone with any footballing knowledge and a business head. I'd expect Cormack to address that and if that can't be achieved with McInnes then we move on with clear and obvious objectives for both doing so and moving forward. That's important. The ridiculous simplicity with which we discuss "McInnes resigning" mid season (at this point specifically) is difficult for me to understand. From a footballing perspective, it would make little sense and from a business perspective it would be idiotic. There's a strong chance that McInnes will get us to finish third. That's fine in league terms, and to be expected from a squad of our strength. If McInnes left right now, then we'd collapse. There'd be a munity, and the players would - rightly - see it as a slight on them as well as the manager. We'd slide down the table pretty quickly, with the press joining in with the "reckless" accusations. It would be a fairly stupid move. Unless there was significant January investment to back it up of course, to allow a decent clearout and new signings. Even then, the timing would be fairly high risk. The summer, however, is a different story. There is the time to plan for succession, the time to sign - and availability of - new players. The time to put a good structure in place that takes the onus off the importance of the manager and onto the strategy of the club. The time to explain to both the players and fans the plan going forward and the reasons for not having McInnes as part of that. That can all start now (or next year!) of course so that if a decision does need to be made then it's not a surprise. As a club, we need to be very very clear as to the reasons we'd get rid of McInnes and the way forward as a club and the type of manager required to replace him. Getting rid of JC was the correct decision, but it was blatantly obvious it occurred on a whim with no obvious strategy for succession (not just for JC, but for all managers, as Brown was a knee-jerk too). Because of this, there were a significant minority of supporters and media folks who weren't onboard with it despite the atrocious run of 10-15 games without a good win. I don't believe Cormack will yet be in a position to make a decision as key as this and I think it'd be stupid to do anything this season unless there is justification through league position (sitting 5-6th in March). That, to me, would be the most pragmatic approach and best business decision.

The biggest problem with both for me was that they made/make very obvious errors. The obvious one for Salmond was the currency issue. I was happy enough with the fact that he addressed it clearly, it's just that he chose the wrong option. It was always going to be a Scottish currency. Always. No point in an independent Scotland without it. Sturgeon's biggest issue is party control, which makes her look competent compared to others on the wanky debates, but there is little substance behind her headlines. Always has been. Backed up by the SNP's weak performance on education, hospitals, fake-PFI and so forth. Both competent politicians of course, but that's not what we need to gain independence in my mind. Unless a few actual thinkers join the board of the next referendum then we'll be left with another campaign that centres around candidate rather than the goal and I think that will be Sturgeon's downfall. Garlogie, it's fairly easy for a party leader to visit their supporters; they'll get very little worthwhile feedback there. Her "presence" wouldn't be felt by someone who wasn't pre-loaded with deference (not a criticism of you). I don't think the SNPs performance in government has been good enough and I think that will be equated with independence when the time again comes. I think we can do much better.

It was horrible. The worst thing is that, that I'd actually our best team give or take. McInnes - finally - got the right balance for a home game against Hamilton, although I'd be switching Wilson and Hedges as Wilson is never a winger. But we did very little of any note other than a chance mcginn should have buried. Ojo looked half decent but was obviously not fit enough for 90 minutes. Gallagher coming on made a difference because he was allowed to play very high up the pitch. Why we couldn't have allowed Wilson or hedges to do the same, I'm not sure? Two more competent finishers I'd guess. After the goal we struggled as they changed it a little. Campbell was the right choice as hedges was losing it in centre mid. All 3 subs made and we didn't have any other options or the ability to break them down and we looked pap. They worked exceptionally hard and started time-wasting from the 30th minute which was embarrassing, but we just looked average. I don't even know what we do in January to be honest. I'd say a very attacking centre mid and a winger, but without getting rid of some of the dross, we're going to have an overloaded squad. We need guys like Wilson (was okay yesterday at times) and main off the wage bill and maybe a couple of youngsters too. I don't think McLennan is going to be good enough for example. Make some space for others and get a settled eleven without the need to change it significantly every week.

Impressive prediction. Will you be resigning (as canvasser) after the SNP's poor result our area?

Were you at the primary school polling station? The car park was fairly rammed when I went roon both times (delivering wife's vote too). Nobody outside, but I don't remember there being anyone last time either.

Aye, I gave in to the call of the Westminster shitefest

Vyner has looked better in midfield than Campbell has this season in my opinion. I class Vyner as a Dom Ball type. Half decent cover. I suspect McGeouch would be better than Bryson, Ojo and Campbell.

Campbell's had a lot of game time this season and hasn't performed very well at all. I'd like to see him get a good loan spell somewhere challenging to get his strength and coverage up before we consider him for the first team - he's clearly not ready yet. I think he'll be a great player in a couple of years time - probably the long overdue replacement for Ryan Jack. He's got all the footballing attributes, but seems to lack on the physical side. I wouldn't like to see him get a tanking every week in our midfield just because other more experienced players aren't up to the task.

Nah, it's just prevarication really. I've got a postal vote, so I've had a while to get my airse in gear but just haven't. It's Tory or SNP in my area. I don't really want to vote for either. For me, the choice is between saying that I'm happy with an electoral system that forces me to vote for someone I don't want to or to not be a part of it at all. I don't want, particularly, to vote tactically as I think that you should always vote for something you want rather than you don't want. If enough folk in my area want to vote Tory then more fool them. I'm taking this election in isolation of course when I'm talking tactics - inotherwords, I'm not going to vote SNP now because in the future that might mean an independent Scotland is closer, I think that's a bit of a cop out. Anyway, I'll likely give in and vote by close of play, but it feels incredibly forced.

Mine isn't. Haven't decided.

I was perfectly consistent in my posting. You're completely entitled to your opinion, but if you ignore my reading and the BBC's reading of it, then it's difficult to gain much from your responses. If your argument was solely that you'd seen the changes that were made but didn't think that they had an impact then I'd be happy to agree to disagree, but you seem to be suggesting that the changes didn't even take place, which I find strange. In that case it doesn't really become about opinion, you're just incorrect.

The evidence of us being utter shite and suddenly not being utter shite immediately after that changes backs me up. The evidence of you not knowing that changes were made suggests you weren't really watching it or the view from the TV angle wasn't in your favour. I think I would have taken the word of someone who was at the game. The changes were clear as day if you ask anyone that was there. The BBC report probably sums it up: "Aberdeen boss Derek McInnes changed shape and his team played with far greater intensity, forcing Rangers to move the ball quicker and quicker, which hastened mistakes and disrupted their rhythm."

I'm clearly not ignoring that though. I've mentioned it in every post. You're not reading what I've written (which is fair enough!). We've had some of the best attendances in years during McInnes' time, but I do agree that his tactics of grinding out wins and managing games over a number of years whilst recruiting poorly is having - and will continue to have - a negative effect on crowds.

That's a very biased set of circumstances. If Cosgrove hadn't missed a sitter, if Lewis had held or palmed Morelos shot etc. The reality is that we battled very hard to get back in the game and deserved any breaks we got. But that's ridiculous. We had to play at least one player out of position given the injuries in midfield. Considine at left back was absolutely the right choice and that was backed up by his excellent performance. If everyone was fit then obviously Leigh is first choice, but that wasn't the case. You've chosen the one difficult decision he actually got right last night. I agree that he doesn't yet know his best team, but we've had significant injuries in both midfield and defence already this season. I suspect nobody is certain whether Ojo or Bryson are first eleven players yet but I would think that is the intention. The majority of the team is probably settled enough otherwise. The wide players are the exception, but that's not unusual. Agreed. I think he's hoping that Wilson will pull something out of nowhere and will rise to the occasion. He's a charlatan in my opinion and shouldn't have been signed. I'll give him credit when he's due credit. Look back through what I've written, it's all heavily caveated. You seem to be suggesting that I'm labelling McInnes as the next fergie which I'm clearly not.

Not really, they've all played in those positions before, it's just that against poorer teams McInnes tends to dick each player about shifting them into different positions. Gallagher being the most obvious of course, I even mentioned it after the at mirren game. He should only ever be played centrally and high up the pitch. I'm not attributing great tactical nous to our manager, I'm saying that it should have been bloody obvious from the st mirren game (and before) that Gallagher was a liability out wide and it would have an impact on considine too and that Leigh and vyner couldn't make up the core of our midfield. It wasn't tactical genius I was suggesting, it was relief. The hun might have shat the bed, but they only did so because we made the specific changes we did. If we'd remained the same, or brought on McLennan and main for Wilson and Gallagher we'd have lost that game. There are plenty of changes that wouldn't have worked and, for me, only a couple that would have allowed us to get back in the game. McInnes got it/guessed right. I was surprised and relieved. Hopefully he'll take that and build on it.

Apologies, thought I'd stated earlier. Just after they scored the second. Should never have taken that long