RicoS321

That'd be fucking ace.

Ace. Stuart McCall. Total fuck up. Thon Dodds header off the bar was a peach too, we were deserved winners that day.

Yep. Good game like.

Yes, exactly. That's not what I mean by representative democracy, that's what it is. The cunts that we voted to represent us might not know best, but it most definitely is their job to. It was a massive dereliction of duty, and continues to be. That should be called out at every opportunity, and someone with integrity and balls should have the leadership to say it and deal with it. Cancel, and come back (the Tories) with a proper proposal that either unilaterally declares independence from the EU upon voting at the next GE because the manifesto commitments require it, or a two tiered manifesto that allows for EU and non-EU membership which could then be subject to a referendum. In other words: Do it fucking properly.

Can it fit within the confines of Pittodrie? Anything else is irrelevant....

Aye, I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, clearly! The EU referendum was irrelevant, and the "will of the people" is irrelevant because we live in a representative democracy. That means we deploy cunts (always cunts) to do the "how/where" for us. Our decisions are, and always have been (in the UK), limited to a series of policies and manifesto pledges that we believe fit our desired narrative (obviously, there's a shite load of obfuscation and wankery amongst that), because that is what representative democracy is. We have never, ever, adopted a system of direct democracy (see Switzerland) in the UK, our system is representative democracy. I can't say that enough. That is the entire point. The fact that the EU referendum wasn't backed up by the BBC (Ch4, ITV, every UK newspaper) explicitly making this point at every single turn is the biggest scandal that exists in UK politics - everything else is irrelevant. The Brexit vote was not representative democracy, simple as. That's an undeniable fact. We've gone against every single principal we've ever been bound to in our political system for the entire existence of the UK. Think about that. It's fucking ridiculous. The referendum was pushing direct democracy on a country that has subsisted entirely on representative democracy for its entire democratic history. That's fucking ludicrous. And nobody is saying it. Nobody. It's the equivalent of a patient needing heart surgery and the surgeon deciding that, instead of just operating, he was going to put the treatment out to a vote of random members of the public - vote A for Stents, B for a bypass, C for praying. He's the expert in surgeonery, but he's delegating that responsibility to some people who've read some shite on the internet. If I was a politician, I'd be fucking raging that some cunt thought they knew the constitutional arrangements required in how to implement my manifesto succesfully more than I did. I'd class myself as politically aware; more so than the vast majority of my friends and colleagues. I'm happy to admit I didn't know the answer to whether we'd better off out of the EU based on the proposed (or not proposed) deal(s). There were no targets, no benchmarks, no goals - it was fucking retardedness. I didn't vote, I couldn't, I couldn't justify it. Where I agree with you is in your reasons for wanting to leave, your thoughts on globalisation. The exact reasons that I'd want to leave the EU. All the issues that were never raised in the referendum, nor appeared in the manifestos/reasoning of those entities pursuing a leave vote. Because there wasn't, and isn't, a plan for those things. Just a faint hope that these things might come to the fore outwith the EU. There is zero evidence to back that up of course (in fact, the UK's involvement in TTIP and so on would suggest entirely the opposite), just a hope. But you're right, the refrendum was simple "stay in the EU or leave it" - it was just completely, and deliberately, disconnected from the end goals and targets of doing so.

Exactly. We have plenty of time to decide on Ball too. I thought it was the right decision to re-sign him in the summer as it was clear the signings we made weren't up to scratch (or risky at best) and I think that's been justified. If we do similar this summer then I'd be happy to have Ball as a known quantity, low risk, option. See how we get on sourcing a Shinnie replacement, and if we're struggling then sign him up for a year. He's already been a better signing than Gleeson and Forrester so it shows how much of a lottery it is when making signings.

No, I'm not. Not one media person is saying anything like I am saying. They are all parroting the shite about "respecting the will of the people" and all that bollocks. I'm saying that the function of our existing democracy - in that it is a representative democracy - means that the vote was irrelevant, because the internal workings of the EU is exactly the responsibility of our representative elected. That is the system in which we live. We need to find a way to remove ourselves from that system by using the mechanisms we have at our disposal. The vote to leave was irrelevant to that process, nor was it it's intension. I am 100% in total agreement with both your points above. Couldn't have put it better myself. There are no parties currently proposing anything to solve the issues you highlight, nothing that leaving the EU (nor remaining) will do to solve the issues that you highlight and no appetite for the revolution that you and I know is vital in order for them to be solved. Nothing was mentioned in the entire process of the Brexit referendum, no solutions put forward. I recognise that breaking institutions down to the lowest possible level (e.g. Scottish independence) gives the greatest opportunity for change, and I understand the globalist project that the EU is, but none of these elements (to change them) have been put forward as a reason for Brexit happening, nor is it what the majority of Brexiters voted for (take back control, immigrants etc). I'd have very much voted for your version of Brexit. I don't see that version as any more likely or viable with a "no deal" brexit or remaining in the EU, so I'd be happy to remain in until that vision is presented (the presentation of that vision is not predicated on being in/out of the EU).

I know the issues regarding both the EU and Westminster, I'm not arguing for or against either. I'm simply saying that the vote to leave is utterly irrelevant and wasn't representative democracy, which is how our existing system works. The referendum doesn't fit into our system, hence why there is no solution. That is because our representatives do not recognise "no deal" as a viable solution. You will not get a majority in parliament to vote to leave the EU without a deal, so it's irrelevant whether it is easy/possible/difficult to leave the EU at the end of March. There is no obfuscation or confusion there just a thing that is. Saying that it was "a very simple choice" is also irrelevant, because it was not our decision to make. There is currently nothing in the Labour or Conservative manifestos that require us to leave the EU, ergo it does not need to be done. They need to cancel it, re-write their manifestos if they so choose and then use their authority as our representatives to decide whether those things can be achieved within the EU and leave otherwise. That's how representative democracy works, not a sham of a referendum. I would definitely vote for a party who's policies required us to leave the EU if those policies were what I believe in. The EU is just a trading mechanism and an organisational tool for our economy.

The bit in bold, I'm not sure that is the case. I don't believe the majority of people who voted leave knowingly did so because of globalism. Certainly not enough to take the threshhold beyond a 50% majority (i.e. the additional 2 percent). They might have railed against the results of globalism, but it could easily be argued that they railed against the results of austerity. Either way, it was a decision based in ignorance (I didn't vote, because I didn't have the knowledge to back that vote up) as can easily be seen in the resulting chaos. The referendum was a fundamental misrepresenting of representative democracy, and it should be ignored completely with a full apology to the electorate and explanation in doing so. As you say, the incompetents tasked with Brexit are not up to it, but nor do they have the convinction and strength to tell the public something that they don't want to here and dictate that that is what is happening. The bullshit about "respecting the people's choice" or "respecting the referendum" needs to be torn to pieces. There wasn't single Tory policy dependent on leaving the EU, so there was no constitutional requirement for change. Cancel Brexit, get an anti-globalist party together with a distinct set of policies which cannot be delivered as part of the EU and people (me, you) can vote for them based on those policies. Being part of the EU isn't a feeling or a throw-away status symbol, it's a tool and series of rules by which the UK runs its economy based on the manifesto(s) of the various parties represented in its parliament. The moment the EU prevents those manifesto promises then we user our elected representatives to negotiate so that they can be met or they leave. This is the sole reason why we cannot get a deal. There was no manifesto for it. Nothing written down that could definitively say what we were voting for. Furthermore, that backstop is basically a safe route back into the EU. May's deal and remaining are pretty much the same end goal, just that May's deal will end up with years of negotiations in the meantime before the public elect a party who promise to end the backstop and go back to being part of the EU with a couple of appeasing changes thrown in.

In the BBC gossip section, taken from the Sun, so perhaps a pinch of salt required. I don't doubt he's moving however. It would have been good to have got a McLean-like deal, but oh well. Despite what some of the posters on here have said recently, Shinnie will be exceptionally difficult to replace. One of the best midfielders in the country, with a fantastic attitude, drive and work rate. A proper captain. We haven't replaced Jack, we haven't replaced McLean (Ferguson definitely will do in future) and we'll really struggle to replace Shinnie.

Or they're just pragmatic? If it meant investing in a good left back, a decent attacking midfielder and a decent winger, then I'd sell McKenna in January. The sums we are talking about for McKenna (and I don't believe the ones touted in Jan) would be worth several seasons' prize funds, so it's not about money v success. Retaining McKenna isn't going to be the difference between us finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd, but not having a left back, some decent supply and a finisher might. I'm pretty certain that we could assemble a team to beat the huns and tims without McKenna in it, but we certainly won't do it with the existing first 11. The Tims cashed in on Dembele when they could. If they'd held onto him for longer, there was a huge risk that they could lose a lot of his value for little return. It's about positioning yourself in the wider game and understanding the correct balance between letting players move on and associated detriment to the team. For the right amount of cash we could let McKenna go and be no more or less succesful because of that (if re-invested to a smaller degree).

You should show some respect, our Queen made Andy a Sir. He's the people's champion.

There's a lot of points to go on there Rocket! Murray was world class at the endurance part though. Just phenomenal. I'm not a massive tennis fan, but I enjoy watching it now and again. Some of the returns he made against the very best were just insane. The number of times, when watching Murray, I would think to myself "fuck, this boy is good" was telling. He could get his arm round anything and produce accuracy at speed that I didn't think was possible (obviously Djokovic did similar). Throughout the nineties, serve and volley was the only strategy and it was severely boring. You wouldn't get a hoofer like Goran Ivanisovic winning in the modern game (although I did enjoy watching him). Regarding the endurance part, the same is happening in every single sport, both professional and yer olympic pish. Fitba is exactly the same, with the top leagues churning out athletes. The analysis and ironing out processes that go on to get to the perfect fitba'rs is indeed making the game less fun. Fuck being a professional sportsperson these days like - it'd be fucking shite.

^^^^^This. Did folk just ignore the entire EBT side letter thing with the huns? Directors cannot directly fund a player's wages. They can provide investment to the club, which in turn can be used to pay players. That investment would be detailed in the accounts. They can provide loans, like the new hun. They cannot pay all or part of a players wages whilst being a professional football club in Scotland as it would invalidate that player's registration and any titles won when that player was registered would be stripp..... actually, fuck it, you can do what you like.

He was fucking rank against the hun, poofed out of several challenges and struggled to move after half time. It was an atrocious performance. Difficult to understate how shite he was that day. I'm surprised anyone thought otherwise. But Ferguson is poor (or wasted, he's not shite there) in the forward role, whereas very dynamic in the sitting role with plenty of room for improvement. All his attributes point to him playing that role, he's nae a James Maddison/Ryan Christie type. I certainly don't think he'll learn anything from Gleeson as he's already a better player. I'm not saying that Gleeson is shite like, he's just very run of the mill. He's Rob Milsom. Tidy on the ball, doesn't give up possession too easily with wayward passing but moves side to side and is a fanny in the tackle. From memory, he had an injury and missed the first part of pre-season so perhaps fitness has been an issue. He looked steady but unspectacular against Hertz, with one decent ball that nearly came off. I definitely wouldn't write him off, I just think that we could do better (or cheaper) in our back up positions. I certainly don't think he's a charlatan either, like Forrester, I think he's genuine enough and will definitely improve given opportunity (just nae enough I don't think). Can I ask, do you attend the games? The reason I ask is that, to me, he's the type of player that looks good on TV as he's tidy on the ball and has a certain gait about him that makes him look like a fitba'r. When you actually attend the games though it's visible that he's limited in his tracking, covering of full backs, dragging opponents away and so on. He's about half as good as Jack was, and I really wanted/expected that we'd get a player who could replace that role (I thought Forrester might be the McLean replacement before actually seeing him).

I'm not sure about all this diverting folk to other forums rather than just repeating the rumours with the caveat that they will likely be utter pish. It's Johnny Russell, by the way. And some cunt called Brendan Galloway (Mike's brither).

I wasn't at the Livingston game, so couldn't comment. The Hearts game Gleeson did quite well when he came on, but only in comparison to Campbell who was struggling a little. His performances earlier in the season were weak as pish (especially the opening hun game) and it was no surprise that both Ferguson and Ball have been in ahead of him all season. Ferguson has been light years ahead of him in terms of movement, covering, pace and general game intelligence and at the moment Gleeson will - correctly - get nowhere near the team if Ferguson is avaible (I see our midfield as Shinnie and Ferguson, with Ball covering for Shinnie and Gleeson for Ferguson). Where I think Ferguson struggles, is in the attacking midfield role that you suggest could work - I think he's been poor nearly every time he's been played there. He's basically a direct replacement for Kenny McLean, who came into his own when played in the deeper role leaving Shinnie to do the pressing and hassling. He has a lot to learn, but everything suggests that Ferguson has the attributes to be a better player than McLean. From watching him in every game apart from the Livingston one, I don't believe Gleeson possesses those attributes and thus will struggle to ever be the player that Ferguson is/will be. The only question for me is if we are paying Gleeson far too much money to be midfield cover. I'm inclined to think so, however Campbell's introduction against Hearts suggested that holding onto Gleeson at least until the end of the season would be beneficial.

I agree, although I think there'll be an element of both, with a reasonable compromise. I doubt that there are many players who'd want to sit around the periphary of a club and not play for a large chunk of their careers. The notion of being "due" money from us is a bit ridiculous and I doubt would trump any player's desire to play fitba (unless at the very end of a career, or after a bad dispute). I can only really think of Bobo Balde in recent years who seem to actively want to sit on a bench and collect money. Obviously, the opposite side to that is the agent in the middle, who will want to get his client the best deal, and I would have thought there would have been a decent pay off for the lad that would have been orchestrated by the agent in order to get the deal with St Mirren through. Perhaps an agreement to pay him until the summer (the equivalent of) or some such. Still the cost of a Cosgrove transfer fee though, but freeing up budget. It's another failed signing though, and needs to be recognised as such. Tansey is just another example of a signing that was never going to be good enough (his team-mate Miles Storey being another). It was an unacceptably bad signing. I had watched enough of Tansey to know that he didn't possess the attributes required to be an AFC midfielder presently (he'd have been fine under McGhee, Brown or late Calderwood of course). His movement was poor, his dynamism not there, his left to right tracking when the ball wasn't in our possession terrible. He was like a really shite version of Kenny McLean, without the positional sense to be a Ryan Jack. Capable on the ball of picking a pass and taking a dead ball, but not the fitness, pace and effort to back it up. The thing about Tansey is that he played in our league long enough for us all to recognise that. I believe that Gleeson is in exactly the same position as Tansey, which is why I don't think he should be near our first team. People get tricked by his occasional excellent pass and tidy ball play, but he's so short on movement, strength, positioning and dynamism that he's never a starter. I have no idea what Gleeson was like down the road, so I can't tell if he has the ability to consistently raise his game in those areas, but in all the years of seeing Tansey it was very obvious he couldn't. Hopefully Gleeson will come good, but there is nothing in his play to date to suggest he can (TC mentions he can't last 90 minutes, but I think that this is less of an issue than his 60 shite minutes on the park so far). I think at some point we'll need to make a decision on both Gleeson and Forrester and they'll suffer the same fate as Tansey if there is no improvement. The problem is that - given their lack of game time in the SPL - there won't be a St Mirren waiting to pick them up, so we'll probably have to take a decent hit on both. I wouldn't rule out Gleeson just yet mind, but it's not looking good.

I think Yatai is excellent, I'm surprised you don't like it, it'd probably be my go to for good food that is at least original and consistent. Agree regarding Chester, but other folk have been happy with it so I thought it must be me. Anyway, Tyrant was suggesting some all you can eat meat place, which is probably for fat people, so I reckon my list would be better than thon pish . Never seen the enjoyment in eating shite loads of just meat. Much prefer more original stuff being done with veggies and spices and the like - far more challenging cook. The point I was making though was that there were plenty of good restaurants, with good being at yer Shay Logan level, rather than necessarily Scott McKenna. I think the thread about the Livingston is definitely the place for this discussion too!

Yatai, Moonfish, Food Story, Yorokobi, Light of Bengal, Shri Bheema, Goulash, the Chester, Musa, Bistro Verde, Atlantis (Mariner), Da Vinci, Cafe 52 Probably others. The first few being top class.

Surely that's just a quantity thing though? We have some very good restaurants in Aberdeen. How many do you need?

The thing is, do we genuinely expect McInnes to solve every issue in the team every window, or should we expect that there are priorities? Up until this season (and probably even in the past summer window) left back wasn't nearly as much of an issue as striker, winger, midfield and centre of defence. Considine isn't an amazing left back, but his position wasn't the consistent area of concern across the park either - we had far greater glaring issues in striker in the summer (and still do arguably), central midfield (and still do arguably!) and in the forward wide areas. That we managed to get Lowe in was a huge bonus, as it lessened the extent to which the total fuck ups in other recruitment - midfield, striker - became an issue. I think that we're only now in a position where I'd put left back as the top signing priority, and that has as much to do with Shinnie being irreplaceable in our midfield by any of our existing squad than it has to do with Considine not being able in there. It is also conditional on the ambitious hope that between Cosgrove, May and Wilson we have enough to get some goals in the season run in. I think you're right that we should be looking for a long(ish) term plan for that role, as I think it's vital that we get at least one of our key deficient areas fulfilled in this window due to the fact that we might have several other key areas to fill in the summer. I generally assume that we can only fill 2 (Ferguson so far) key positions per season (and January is especially difficult for this) with long term solid signings, with others being either filled by loan or by adequate short term replacements like yer Balls, yer O'Connors, yer Stewarts, yer Hobans and so on. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we can do more. If we get a loanee left back, than I'd expect we'll do some good further business in midfield or striker in order to bring in one good solid signing before summer - otherwise we'd have a very busy summer and we'll likely fail to get the required numbers in.

After all the hysterics on the various forums after Fraser left for nothing, it would be hilarious if he earned a big money move and bagged the dons their record transfer fee on the sell-on clause alone. Rumoured to be 22% or some such. The one downside is that he really seems to enjoy playing for Bournemouth, which might mean he doesn't move to a club who can pay the £20M+ that'd pay for our training ground for which he left due to it's non-existence.

I don't get the clamour for Gleeson in midfield. Weak as piss in any outing so far this season, with movement non-existent. Decent game against Hertz aside, he's been pap. He'd get run around by Christie, and slaughtered physically by Brown on previous showings. Considine at left back is significantly less risky than Gleeson in midfield. That said, neither are great options, and it shows the dilemma we have if Lowe isn't fit. I realise that if Considine goes to left back then we have zero central defenders though, so I sort of get it. I think we should just prop Lowe up on the left side and hope for the best - he's nae our player after all. Taking Shinnie out of midfield was not good for us against Hearts though, and meant we absolutely had to sacrifice a second striker. His workrate is phenomenal. Anyway, we'll fuck them up 2-0. Gleeson double.