RicoS321

Further to wee toon's explanation. It means that you are guaranteed at least a play-off spot for the euros. There will be a normal qualfication campaign too, which if you win yer group you go through without a playoff. Winning the nation's league will mean that there is less pressure for the normal euro qualifiers as you will have a fall back. It's a good thing to win I'd say, we showed in the last campaign that we can be a good team when the pressure is completely off (we'd all but failed to qualify after the Lithuania game). The problem being - as it was in the Slovenia game - when we face the pressure of the "nned to win" games again and we fuck it up.

Watch what you say about the Northern Irish, they'll set the bad spirits on you. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-mp-gregory-campbell-wants-sale-of-ouija-boards-regulated-31094502.html

Apparently he is being inducted to the SFA hall of fame.

Strachan was playing Tierney at right back in order to shoehorn him in. I would agree mind you, but I also see the strengths of a back 3 when played correctly and I think it's something that will come more prevalent in the international (then club) scene in the coming years). Tierney and Robertson should be kept apart in that system though (Tierney in the centre) as they nullify each other by occupying similar spaces. They were both gash last night, and I'm not sure if Robertson is that good as a wing back as he doesn't actually take people on particularly well (he overlaps, which he's fantastic at). He didn't get any crosses in last night. MacDonald was our best midfielder last night. I don't really like him, I think he's too slow, but Forrest has 22 of the shittest Scotland caps in history (last night no exception) without scoring and Armstrong has made 5 sub appearances this season. Neither are an adequate replacement (we should be kidnapping McArthur and forcing him to play). Last night's team would have been fine if we'd played the back 3 correctly. I don't think McLeish got it right, and he didn't change to a back 4 until Souttar (who was also pish) got red carded. That said, we had 7 SPFL players on the pitch last night and no players who aren't playing regularly for their team. Chris Martin has been consigned to history, Hanley been put down and so has every other no-mark championship wank who ever played 3 seconds for Reading or some shite and had an English granny. We're giving young players an opportunity too (McKenna wouldn't have been near a Strachan squad). He's not got it right, and far from it, but he does seem to have addressed a lot of the things that supporters took issue with under every manager this century (including McLeish). I want this team to succeed as I think we're doing things the right way. Hopefully McLeish will be given the chance and that'll happen. I think the handling of the Griffiths thing was poor and that can't happen again. He's been average this season, so hopefully the rest will give him the boot up the arse for the next set of matches (not before then...).

Alisdair Campbell on radio Scotland this morning arguing the case for Gazza. Jim Spence tore into him, it was a great listen. He's nae bad for a dirty arab is Spencey.

Think that's really harsh on Souttar, his arm was in a perfectly normal position and nowhere near hitting the cheating cunt. His real offence was fucking about on the ball in the first place for no fucking reason. Saying that, his first was an extremely harsh yellow too. The only way the back three works is if you keep it wide and force the opposition back with high full backs. O'Donnell and Robertson were pap and the back three way too narrow. The simple solution would be to put Tierney (he was pap too) in the centre of the three as a sweeper and play McKenna and another (Henry probably) at left and right centre half. They both have the pace and strength to see off a lot of attacks as well as being able to move the ball quickly when required. I'm with you though, I'd stick with a 4.

Perfect. I'll bring the car.

Mulgrew looking good on the ball, scores a belting pen and then switches off at a basic hoof over the top. Classic Mulgrew.

There is. It would be perfectly hunnish like. I have no problem with the dons giving back tickets either, and expect them to do so. I do have an issue with being given a second rate viewing experience in comparison to the opposition in a neutral venue. I hope everyone refuses to buy seats in the East stand.

Yep, I'd agree. Longevity since we were in a final, and the fact it was a final, too. That shouldn't preclude us from being treated the same as our opponents though.

Gazza had some sublime performances for the Hun, but over a comparitively short period of time. I thought Van Bronckhorst was a better player, Stefan Klos too. They were world class, like Laudrup and Willie Miller and thon diving Larssen cunt. Hall of fame is for wanks though.

It'd be good if you - and others - wrote to the club letting them know yer reasons. We should have got the whole of the North stand and one of the ends, they should have got the larger South and most of the other end. Then we could return by section in the shared end. We don't have enough seats with a proper view. We're being discriminated against. For not being weegie cunts.

Yep, ridiculous. Due to Hampden being a shite ground, we get offered 14,000 substandard seats and then questioned as to why we cannot sell them. We should be offered half the South, half the North and then continue to sell the East from the top down if we sell those. If there's not a full house then it's because Hampden is a shite venue - no other reason. Row 1 behind the goals is worse than watching in a pub where you can't see the TV. We'll not sell 20,300 because 20,300 people won't part with money to be treated like a second class citizen. It's not AFC's problem that Hampden is shite, so why do we start off with an unfair advantage because it is?

I would very much doubt that. Once we're out we're out. Nobody's going to back an immediate return and the EU wouldn't allow it. It'd be the constitutional equivalent of letting the new huns in to the top league - we are very much the hun of the EU. For your scenario, you'd have to have a general election before the article 50 in March, which is cutting it very fine. At best, that will be campaigned with labour backing a second referendum. There is zero onus on Teresa calling a general election even if the proposed deal with the EU doesn't get through parliament. In that case it goes to no deal. In terms of the border: no deal means a hard border (unequivocally, despite what Rees-Cunt might suggest). A hard border contravenes the UN Good Friday agreement to which the UK is a signatory (almost certainly). That hard border could move to the Irish Sea (then move again to hadrian's wall...) which the DUP wouldn't like. As you said earlier, I don't see anything other than a hard border working, so either we get a hard border and Brexit or we get a customs union with free movement but with no control over the EU laws which we'll have to accept as part of the customs union. This could, and should, have been on the referendum ballot in the first place.

But the evidence doesn't back this up. I'm not talking about our inability to win in the season that Delia was a shite manager - which is debatable, certainly - I'm talking about the 32 other years of evidence that shows that that particular season was a one off. I'm very quick to highlight our own shortcomings, but I also don't expect us not to make mistakes. We'd have to get every decision 100% correct in order to win the league (even that Ronnie Roar season), whether it be on when to release funds or the signings made from those funds. The odds are overwhelmingly, and systemically, stacked against us. Whether we can do better or not is not what I'm arguing (we can, very clearly). I'm also not saying that there is a "fix" as in a conspiracy, I'm saying that there is a fault of setup that needs to be recognised and addressed because no amount of Milne ranting about the minor issues of SFA panels and cup semi final locations will do anything to address that. He's not going for the big issues. Except it isn't. Not even remotely. If crowd were the only factor then Celtic wouldn't have 10 times our wage bill, they'd have 4. Far more influential is the fact that they made £30M of revenue last season from a competition which ensures that they are then in poll position to be in that competition again the next season. That's the systemic issue. It's beyond argument, it's simply a fact. If it were only a case that ticket revenue was the difference, then we wouldn't have been 33 years without another league winner. I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise. It also assumes that only AFC can bridge the gap. What has Milne's poor running of AFC done to prevent Hearts from winning the league in the last 33 years? Or Hibs? Or Utd (that was a joke). What he could have done was fought alongside other times to get the 10 fold wage gap down to 4, then we'd see a new winner every 5-10 years. The evidence is overwhelming. We are in the most unequal period of Scottish football since its inception and that has resulted in 33 years of unparalleled two-teamism.

That's the bit I'm saying I don't believe. They're not interested in competition, just competition between Celtic and Rangers. A certain type of competition. Nobody is "accepting" that the majority in Scottish football are incapable of mounting a serious challenge, they are explicitly stating a fact. The game, by design, is setup to ensure that the team that wins the league disproportionally increases revenue to an extent not seen in our game ever before and to a proportion (of turnover of the next most profitable club lets say) not seen in other leagues.

I don't believe that for a second. If we won the last four league titles and the hun were bust they'd still be saying that the league needs a strong Rangers. It has nothing to do with competition and everything to do with re-instating the bigotfest, helicopter Sundays and a game returned to post 2012 boredom. That's what the media want, the SFA, the SPFL and probably a large portion of the country. They've built our entire game around it and that's what they use to market it internally and externally (to Scotland). The rest are incapable of mounting a serious challenge. The game is set up to ensure this. It's systemic and AFC fought to keep it that way.

It's a good example you use (Brexit). The evidence was available in advance that the particular type of Brexit (the complete fucking unknown type) was going to be a shambolic shite show. "People make mistakes" doesn't wash when there's a deliberate ignorance of the evidence. The same can be applied to not changing the voting system, the attempted shoe-horning of the hun into the first division and so on. The notion that Milne made a mistake on not changing the 11-1, for example, is ridiculous. He had the evidence in front of him and would make the same decision again tomorrow. Hence his "Scottish football needs a strong Rangers" several years later despite the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. He can still be right on many things, he just has to acknowledge his own part in making those issues more likely to occur.

Fucking charlatan can piss off. Shite from the first minute he entered the park, hiding behind defenders and making shite runs. Compare that with both Anderson and Maclennan.

That's a bit harsh, Gleeson is the midfielder who was asking for the ball. He had heaps of time and options of both Considine and Devlin with a proper pass or a simple pivot into heaps of space (as he did in the 90th minute with a great pass to GMS). It was entirely his own making. His entire game is to take the ball in difficult areas and make something, he should be completely aware where his opponents are as a midfielder. He showed for the ball and got it, Considine not remotely at fault.

Given our penchant for signing blatantly guilty, but unconvicted, rapists he'll always have a place at AFC.

Forrester looks like the type who'd be good in training. Generally lazy, not switched on and never first to the ball but looks like he knows how to control a ball and pass. Nae much use to us like. Similarly Gleeson, those are the minutes that I keep talking about should be reserved for youth involvement and we should have had Campbell on that park today. He wouldn't have made that fuck up either. Good all round performance though, agree with most of yer analysis. I'd have gone Shinnie for MOTM as his work rate was excellent and was the difference early doors between us being ponderous and instead driving forward. Lowe was also very good, with McLennan strong and direct. Defence was solid, Ferguson and Ball good and great to see Cosgrove get a couple (even though his second was weak as pish). McLennan's was a peach.

Yes. The notion that we should start boycotting away games is one of the most hunnish things I think I've heard. Boycott the huns and tims perhaps, but anyone that things that Hamilton are more complicit than AFC in perpetuating the scum stranglehold is deluded. If we're doing boycotts, then we need to look far closer to home for the culprit.

The club should be releasing its submission to the SFA panel for both this and the Devlin cases with a clear indication of what they were arguing and why and where the SFA process has not delivered. It needs to be accurate and to the point. We completely fucked up with the Devlin case and sent out a weak statement that allowed the SFA to come back with a "thanks for your input, we'll look into it. By that we mean, we'll suspend your best defender at the earliest opportunity for having the audacity to question us".

Interesting take on it. I don't know who is on the panel, but I suspect they'd be a lot lower down the chain to be involved in that type of conspiracy. Unlikely, also, given we're not going to be spending any huge percentage of McKenna money on players with a training facility and stadium to fund. I do think that we probably riled them with the Devlin complaints though and I reckon these cunts are the type to hold grudges. There is no way on earth that McKenna's clumsy challenge should be cited; shite like that happens all the time. If the ref had given the decision then that I'd understand it not being overturned because I think that there's enough of a stretch to say that it was reckless and the onus is on backing a referee's position, but to take it the other way round is just ridiculous.