RicoS321

To save on the quoting, I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's massively flawed. Your opinion on McInnes aside, you're suggesting that we just need one manager that's a winner in order to win the league (one manager short); obviously with the associated luck etc. That suggests that in 34 years of Scottish fitba, there hasn't been one single manager at any club that is a winner? And Europe, where no league win - and I did include, and mention, Leicester in that - has come close to the disparity in wages from the Tims/Huns to their nearest competitor. Not one example. To avoid Leicester being argued about, let's say that there's one example, and it was Ranieri at Leicester. I'm pretty certain if I'd asked you about Chelsea's Ranieri "the tinkerman" back in 2002 you would have stated that he wasn't a winner (as would just about everyone). Anyway, that aside, that's one example of a significant gulf in wages being overturned this century. That suggests, to me, that a winner does cost money. Or certainly one that actually wins stuff and not just a person deemed to have a "winners mentality" like Lennon or Clarke (I like Clarke, but he wouldn't win the league with Aberdeen, so we're looking for someone better than him). That said, I do believe that our goal is to win the league every year, or at least the dream is. The notion that belief and winner's mentality alone can do it is just ridiculous though. The notion that anyone doesn't believe/dream that they can win the league is also wierd, I'm pretty certain McInnes and even Milne, have dreamt about holding the trophy at the end of the season and probably every season. It would be pretty stupid to expect it or budget or spend for it though.

Yep, he did well and the signs were good. The mad Lithuanian sending the club into admin which, in turn, relegated them because they spent much more money than they took in despite being very well placed in the league. If 34 years isn't a ceiling, then I'm not sure what it is. I don't expect to see many ceilings left in a 34 year old Stewarty new-build, that's for sure. It's systemic and circular. That you ignore the 34 years of evidence and put it down to Stewart Milne and McInnes is bewildering. I think Milne has done a poor job, and his idea for a new stadium will destroy the club, but I don't believe Anderson and Donald would have won us a league either (I do believe we'd have had a few more trophies and the like of Paterson and Miller would have been nowhere near the club and Westhill would be a ridiculous joke). The post-92 (ish) gulf in finances is unmatched anywhere in Europe. To win the league would require absolutely everything to go right: every signing, every decision, every last minute goal alongside a complete melt down from the Tims. It'd be significantly bigger than Leicester winning the EPL. My point about throwing millions at it, is that I don't think a short term spree would see us over the line. That's exactly what Romanov did and it failed at the first attempt and the Lithuanian imports got cheaper and cheaper. We're a good 7-8 players - at least - behind the tims. I watch Aberdeen because I've supported them since before my first memories and I enjoy watching fitba. I enjoy the ups and downs and the fact that you can watch a team develop or get shiter over time. I enjoy the moments that are great and the moments that are shite. I enjoy the fact that I can see the differences in performance from week to week because I see it with my own eyes. The formations, the tactics, the subs (or lack of, in McInnes' case), the timing of subs, the shite players and the good players. It's what fitba is about. I also tug off because we won the 2nd place trophy in recent seasons. Winning the league would absolutely be a fortituitous accident. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the last 34 years of evidence and the evidence throughout Europe where nobody else has achieved similar - it would take an absolutely monumental fuck-load of luck. This isn't just Aberdeen that are failing to do it, the evidence exists for every other team too, who also must be running and managing their club terribly by your standards. You fail to admit, nor acknowledge that there is not only a complete correlation between finance and league winning, but also a massive correlation between finance and being able to afford a manager who can overcome the correlation between finance and league winning. The perfect manager does exist, he just doesn't exist in a world where AFC can afford to pay him. I'm looking for AFC to do much, much more off the pitch to challenge the fact that 90% of our revenues go to one (occasionally two) club in this country and really hit the scum hard off the pitch. I'm looking for them to point out the fucking obvious again and again and again until something changes. Fitba in Scotland isn't sport, it's a bought and paid for sham. I want us to ditch the Milnes and become a club that lives and dies by its own turnover and support, not chasing the scum by trading insolvently or artificial investment from a few rich cunts. If we lose, we lose, if we win then we dinna have to credit some dick who we're beholden to because he happened to make money in some other industry once. I didn't mean we couldn't discuss anything, it's just that you seem to be arguing in a different universe to the one that currently exists at AFC. The goal (I assume) is to finish as high up the league as possible whilst spending an amount of money roughly in line with our turnover. The only question is whether that, within our turnover, is Hayes an investment that will help us improve on this year's league performances? You seem to be advocating that we spend money to chase, and overtake, the Tims I think? I don't know actually, because all you keep saying is that we should have a goal of winning the league with no apparent mechanism for us doing so. A day out, yes. Why wouldn't I? Would I prefer to be a Tim watching my financially doped squad win every week? Why should I see myself as any different to a Motherwell fan, or a Hearts or Hibs fan (given I have fuck all control over AFC)? I enjoy watching fitba, it's a good day out. I also enjoy the discussions about the games afterwards too. I don't know why you'd take issue with that. I do think that Milne is barrier for AFC, I disagree about McInnes. The difference is I know that the barrier he imposes is largely inconsequential in the scheme of things as there is a ceiling to our ability to make cash based on our support, and it would not make a dent in a single champions league game revenue for the Tim. My main complaint about him is that he makes a lot of mistakes, his vision for the club conflicts with my own and he has made no effort to change fitba in Scotland from the inside. In recent years he's done okay in his own terms and in McInnes he's got a manager who's in the top three in the country (Rogers, Clarke, McInnes), who has his obvious flaws but has a very solid points return despite those. I think he deserves to remain manager for a while longer and Milne should leave tomorrow and take his shitey plot in Westhill with him (aye, leave the training ground like).

You didnt, my apologies. I think that's (yer second point) the existential point that surrounds Scottish fitba in an where only two teams have won the league in the last 34 years for both those clubs who have not won the league and those that have. I'm not sure why you think AFC are best placed to resolve this (assuming chairman and manager left)? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss what may or may not be an incremental gain for AFC within the current parameters that are outwith our control. I believe that Hayes returning would be an incremental gain to our squad on the assumption that he was here to challenge the first 11 rather than assume a guaranteed spot. You seem to be arguing from a parallel universe where we have a different manager and chairman. Basically, I think you should just provide the sack the manager/chairman bit as part of a disclaimer to all your posts but still give your opinion on the raised point within the confines of the existing AFC setup!

Aye, okay, but you must recognise the massive gap between our current squad and a title-winning squad? Even with a few million quid to spend, we're not getting a title-winning squad next season - even if Neil Lennon came in as manager. It's about incremental increases. If we can get Hayes in as squad player challenging the first eleven then that's an incremental increase. If Shinnie and GMS leave then we need two decent midfielders, a left back, a wide player (or two), another striker and a right back to challenge Logan in the summer. If McKenna leaves, then another centre half. If Devlin dies, then another centre half. That's a fair re-build by any stretch. We're going to get signings who are not up to it, as every team does, so having a tried and tested player would surely be a sensible solution to mitigate the inevitable transfer fuck ups? Finally, I don't think Hayes is a journeyman. He's been at the top end of the league's best players in every season he's played in the SPL, who just happens to be not quite good enough for the team that he's getting paid £15-20K per week to play for (but still played more than Morgan or Allan). He's a good professional who will undoubtedly raise the performances of the younger players in our squad if they try to emulate his fitness and approach to the game. Journeyman is definitely not the correct term for Hayes.

It can be, but there are numerous examples of players who haven't been affected by similar injuries though. Considine as an example from our own ranks. To the extent that I don't think you can necessarily state that it'll have an effect. In fact, even in May it doesn't seem to effect his all round play. I see the player that St Johnstone had, but who is just not making the same runs as he was when he was scoring. I don't think he's lost any pace, any strength or any ability, just a timing of run that's poor and has been withered further through deep lack of confidence in his own ability in front of goal. I've always thought/said that his brief purple patch at St Johnstone was the result of a lot of very hard work that took him to the peak of his game. In other words, I don't think it was injury, it was just that he was never that good and - crucially - there didn't seem to be the avenues for improvements to his game that you can see in likes of McKenna or Fraser or even Wright; he was already the best he was going to be. I haven't heard of any adverse affects from his injury on Hayes, just that the Tims have better players in his position and he was always going to struggle to break into that team. Do you think he's better than Ball, Gleeson, McGinn? I do. We're not going to be signing 14 players in the summer, so this type of safe(ish) signing is more pragmatic than retrograde.

Sooo, Venezuala. The old Obama chemical weapons red-line again. You can kill as many of your own citizens as you like, but touch our puppet and you're fucking dead. Luckily all other American interventions in the South of that continent have been a roaring success that championed the people.

I don't think Hayes would cost us the amount you assume. I think he'd be on similar or less than what he was when he left. With his professionalism and work ethic, he'd walk into a Hertz or Hibs. There might be better value in a younger player from the lower leagues in England, but only if you completely ignore the 4 other players we'd have to sign too in the lottery that is our scouting process. If you were to accept that Cosgrove was a good signing, then you'd have to also accept that he's at least a 1 in 4 punt that came good. With Hayes you get a tried and tested player who you know will perform to a certain level. If we were considering re-signing Ball for example, I'd far rather that we spent the money on Hayes. I would still be looking for us to sign actual first team players in addition when it gets to the summer of course so that Hayes is just the reliable backup alongside our developing youngsters. Obviously if it was just a loan from the Tims, then fuck that. Only a free transfer would be acceptable. I'm talking out of pragmatism too, I don't see Hayes as an exciting signing, just a solid professional who's an improvement on the likes of Ball and Gleeson.

I'd actually rather have Hayes than Morgan. Hayes has a phenomenal workrate and is versatile. If given the choice, I'd rather have Hayes in centre mid than Gleeson (and Ball) for example even though that isn't his position (although, if he's lost a little of his pace, then it may not be a bad role for him). I think he's still got a couple of decent years left in him and would definitely improve our squad as a whole, if not our starting eleven.

14 charges. Impressive haul. Safe to say that he's fucked. Politically speaking.

Two statements joined together - by the word "instead" - to create one single point not to be taken separately as per the laws of the English language. One point that implies that the gross £350M is the net position after EU inward receipts. It's like taking the turnover of AFC and wondering why we can't spend it all on 3 players as if we could simply ignore paying anyone. Pretty much everyone in the leave campaign has disowned that pish, I'm not quite sure why you'd defend it. It's not a fact of life in British elections. US elections do not have the same transparency requirements over donations and fundings. It's a massive problem, and it should have been included in the documentary. No, they weren't obvious, and were actively denied by the leave campaign. If you can find a single quote from a prominent leave campaigner who said that there would be a hard border between NI and Ireland and that was what we were voting for, I'll send you a virtual congratulation. If you can find a single interview with a Leave voter where they are asked about the inevitable hard border and what they felt the consequences of that might be, I'll send you another. I don't think you even believe that 52% of the electorate "could see the bigger picture" in your own terms. It's an established view, not an establishment. I don't change my views because people I don't like agree with me. The play showed a campaign built on slogans and deliberate vagueness - i.e. dishonest. Not setting out their plan post Brexit was dishonest. Everything about it was dishonest, because it wasn't honest. Compare it with the indy ref as an example, and it was night and day. That it was a brilliant campaign only tells us that it was a brilliant campaign. The malboro man didn't make smoking any healthier, but by fuck it sold cigarettes. None of this I would disagree with (most of it unaffected by EU membership) apart from the bit in bold (I don't believe that 52% voted out for that reason), hence why I didn't vote to remain. I feel let down by the Leave campaign as they didn't articulate a plan for post-Brexit and have left themselves open to the current situation. No amount of your ranting against the establishment changes that. They're campaign was childish and inarticulate and it will fuck them over. There won't be a no-deal Brexit and that is the issue I have with it. They should have taken a leaf out of Scotland's book, produced a manifesto and trusted in their ability to deliver it. They didn't and will lose because of that.

Dom Ball, who's cover for Shinnie. Campbell cover for Ferguson. It's not ideal, but if we get the opportunity to ditch Gleeson now, it might be an idea to take that. The biggest issue would be if both Shinnie and Ferguson get injured, as Ball and Campbell isn't strong enough. Shinnie could probably carry Campbell and we'd be okay, but Ball doesn't have the movement. One issue I can see is that if Lowe gets injured or suspended. The gulf in midfield, to me, means that you can't move Shinnie in to cover, it'd have to be Considine or Reynolds. Fine for the majority of games, but knowing our luck it'll be the game preceeding that against the Tims or Huns that Lowe gets a dubious red card that the panel don't overturn. Hopefully if we ditch Gleeson then it'd be to free up space for another midfielder in the mould of Christie (who could have covered for the Ferguson role on occasion).

I know what the bus said. It was a lie based on any reasonable and objective assessment. For obvious reasons. I'm surprised that you'd (or anyone would) even attempt to argue otherwise. I enjoyed Uncivil War, but the glaring ommission of illegal funding was a little galling. Some things are too important to leave out and bought votes on either side should have been the number one focus given its impact in future elections. More so when such a slim majority is gained. As I say, I've no issue with the concept of Brexit (no deal) at all, it just needed to be fully articulated prior to any referendum (like the independence white paper) and - in my opinion - should not have been subject to referendum at all. That articulation should have said that our Brexit vision will consist of the following: - Move to WTO rules - hard border between NI and Ireland - Freedom of movement revoked in the EU area Again, I have no problem with the above statements at all, and all are consistent with what is now called a "no deal" brexit. Obviously the actual "white paper" would have added more detail, but these basic points would have been clear. The campaign, at no point, articulated this (even high level) detail (in fact it actively rejected the above statements on numerous occasions), which has allowed yer remainers to pish about with Deal or No Deal and "people's (wankers') vote". Without this statement of basic fact, it is very easy for remain MPs to form the opinion that at least 2% of people did not vote for the above - and I would be inclined to believe that too, thus removing any majority for a No Deal (which is exactly what I believe a vast majority of Leave voters voted for). The bottom line for Leave is, if you don't run yer campaign honestly and openly (which is very much borne out by The Uncivil War and the sloganeering highlight) then you deserve all you get when people choose to ignore the result - you give them a way in. The biggest thing that I took from the documentary is that if they actually ran a campaign clearly highlighting the above three points, I'm almost certain that they would still have won. Leave has to take the brunt of the criticism for the current shambles, they simply weren't prepared enough, not explicit enough and didn't give enough detail. It's like they didn't even believe they'd win by being honest. Stupid cunts.

Ahh, fuck, nae luck. Anyway, just to prove my worth as a scout (and take first place in the Gleeson and Forrester are pish race):

You've got nae hope, you can't even quote properly...

Fuck knows. I suspect they looked at him and saw a guy that is capable on the ball and pretty capable of doing the range of passing in a similar fashion to Tansey at ICT. Perhaps there is a dearth of statistics (or they are inaccurate) on a player's coverage during a game and the scouts were drawn into the trap of associating balls-skills with running and effort. If a player makes a number of good passes, or nice touches then I suspect they can appear significantly better than they actually are, or be seen to be doing more than they are - just my theory like, probably pish. For Tansey, I suspect that if - as I assume it was him - McInnes saw him in games against us then he was just too close to the action in the dugout. From further back and in the ends (I sit in RDL) it was clear his movement was pap, but he had good quality when on the ball in his days with ICT (again, my theory). In terms of "going through the motions" at Peterborough, I suppose that can be seen in two ways. One is that there is a good player with a bad attitude and the other is that there is a good player with a good attitude that isn't happy in their current environment. You have to assume that AFC saw the latter and saw the huge possibilities for improvements in his game that could turn a cheap investment into a good one. That isn't a ridiculous position to take when it comes to the lowe English leagues. They're a totally different kettle of fish to up here. It was obvious that he didn't have the physical attributes to play in the hoofer divisions, but not unfeasable that he'd have the physique to play in our league. Turned out he was just an absolute fanny as well as not being capable of the additional effort and that became apparent on day one (to me anyway) for us. It was clear almost immediately that, even with huge improvements in the required aspects of his game he wouldn't reach the required level. In short, fuck knows, I think it's probably just quite a hard job and a lot of it is down to luck!

Ahhh, I see fit yer saying, apologies. I suspect he's effectively been given a small pay-off with a gardening leave style agreement whereby if he gets a new contract within the life of his contract with us then we stop paying him. Would seem standard.

I don't think we paid £200K with the intention of releasing him in the window..... I'm not sure what your solution is? Stop paying money for players in case it doesn't work out? I think it's good that we have the ability to admit our mistakes and get rid. Far better that, than feeling obliged to give him a 20 minute run out here and there in order to keep him happy. Would a £100K (half our Forrester fee) increase in the recruitment staff budget result in a better return on our scouting? Signings like this, Tansey etc would certainly suggest some investment wouldn't be wasted. Although, I have no idea what additional scouting could be bought for that type of money. I'm going to claim that I had first call on here suggesting that Forrester wasn't up to it (and Gleeson). From the minute I saw him, I could tell that there was a huge part of his game missing to play in the current AFC team. I also called out Tansey before he signed, and Storey. I think I could get a better return on our investments if the club were willing to pay me £100K

Aye, I don't agree with it either, I just mean that it's reality. It's short-termism at its worst. That said, we were very close to getting Christie permanently, in which case would you have thought twice about Morgan coming?

Well, aye, but what if the Tims loaned Morgan to Hibs and his goals and assists led directly to them gaining 9-12 points (not unrealistic) and finishing above us? I'd be happy enough that we've eplicitly rejected a model that relied on Tims ahead of our young players (Wright and McLennan in this case, who may be worse players than Morgan - I've only see him play once, and he was average) even if it meant us finishing lower in the league, because that's just the way I am. However, from the point of view of the manager who's job will be lost through poor league finishes, you could surely understand the dilemma? It has to be a club decision, and it has to be publicly articulated at club level (i.e. above McInnes) and built into expectations. Perhaps even with an agreement with yer Hertz, Hibss, Killies and Motherwells to alleviate the potential of the player just going elsewhere.

Obviously I hate us getting players from them, but pragmatically speaking though, we got a player who won us several points and progressed us through tournaments (semi final goal v Hibs for example). Whilst we developed a player for the Tims, arguably they could easily have just bought a player of similar calibre (Rogic let's say) who would have done a similar job and also had no bother scoring against us. I think, overall, we gained a lot from Christie's move in terms of our on the park performances - we were a better team with him in it (although I never thought him and McGinn worked particularly well together, but that's not specific to Christie). Celtic also gained massively too, but that's neither here nor there given the gulf in finances. You also have to factor in the points gained by another club (say Hertz, Hibs or whoever) had they signed Christie instead; he's clearly a good player that thrived on game time. From a short term perspective, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Christie or Morgan as a temporary solution for six months is fine if there are few other obvious options (which is almost always the case in January). The biggest problem is the long term defecit that it creates. Celtic are developing a model whereby they can pick up the best young players (Christie, Morgan, Allan, Griffiths) with zero intentions of developing them. They send them out on loan to either success or, in the case of Allan, not quite there. By facilitating these loans (and, let's be honest, they will just loan Morgan to someone else if not us) we're actively promoting a model which allows Celtic to have zero/minimal downside to taking a punt on a young player. They can pay a comparitively small fee and then have a significant portion of the subsequent wages funded by the loan move with a resulting asset generally worth more than the initial outlay and wages less loan wages received. To me, it's a systemic issue that needs to be addressed further up the chain than AFC (although AFC could certainly highlight it), perhaps by preventing loans between clubs in the same league. Whilst Morgan could probably have/may still go down South for a spell, that possibly wouldn't give him the same Tim-ready experience that he'd get in the SPL. I think that would be a simple solution to a problem that isn't being addressed or recognised, and would probably prevent the Tims going for players like Morgan in the first place, who clearly aren't anywhere near ready for their first team, but allows them to have significant control of the best players in the league(s). Until that type of legislation is passed however, we may be cutting our noses off to spite our faces - from an entirely pragmatic perspective - by not pursuing these types of loans, as inevitably our loss would be someone else's gain.

I don't think it was. The No campaign was run in a very similar fashion to the EU No campaign. I disagree with Kow, in that the EU leave campaign was not project fear, it was just project lie. There was nothing fearful about the £350M on the side of the bus for example, but it was a lie. Project fear was blatantly the Remain campaign. The problem is that they failed to take the referendum seriously enough (and they were clearly a bunch that couldn't be trusted) to hammer home some of the difficulties associated with Leaving. They tried their 2014 fear approach, but it simply didn't work because nobody really trusted a word they said after at least 20-30 years of treating the electorate with contempt. When you dumb down politics (and probably education) to the extent that we have in the UK this century then feed them a bunch of pandering, half-arsed shite (on top of a decade of austerity) then the result should be fairly inevitable.

Yes he did play right back for us. I actually thought he was a right footer playing at left centre half for St J, but I'm probably wrong

I like Shaugnessy, good player. Comfortable on the ball and gets stuck in. I was surprised when we let him go. I had heard at the time that McInnes didn't like his attitude, but that could be nonsense. Replacement for McKenna I'd assume.

It's exactly the type of signing we should be getting in a January windae. Known quantity, easy to integrate straight in the team, zero risk. Good business indeed. The summer is different, you get much more time to assess and settle the player in.

And changed his name.