RicoS321

Looks like Biden set to be the Democrat nominee. I don't know what I'd do if I was in Yankland. I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't vote. When you say that the world can't afford another four years of Trump, do you think that the world can afford 4-8 years of Biden? I'm not convinced. The defining feature of Obama and Blair's eras - who I'd suggest are the easiest comparisons to make with Biden - for me, is what came after. Ignoring Iraq (and for the record, I think he's a total cunt) Blair did a lot of decent work in office (Sure Start, minimum wage etc), but he stopped short of creating a more caring and thoughtful/questioning society. There were few, if any, traditional Labour values (not that I'd necessarily care for those anyway, but it's not about me!) embedded into society that couldn't be ripped up in seconds upon his (or Brown's) departure. Unsurprisingly, that is what happened, with Tory austerity trashing anything good that Blair might have done and with Osborne going further than even Thatcher would have attempted. Similarly in the US, where Obama's Blair years (pandering to Wall St, the centre-right media etc) have easily been unwound - and more - in four years of Trump. It was easy. Not just easy, but inevitable. Four to eight years of Biden won't lead to a better world, they'll lead to another Trump. When you don't challenge the economic norms, when you don't challenge the donor class or the media then the cycle will only ever frequent between Blair and Boris, Obama and Trump/Bush. That's the new cycle, the new wave - you could chart it from G W Bush, moving up and down whilst steadily rightward. Thatcher and Regan set that new normal very succesfully. Unless you're willing to attack that normal and show it for what it is then that cycle continues. In my opinion, there is no avenue for tackling climate change, inequality, resource use, consumption, perpetual war within a hopey change Biden manifesto - things that are actual physical issues that will come to a head this century. Thus, in eight years time you'll just be eight years closer to the limit. Being closer to the limit brings greater Draconianism, greater hatred of the immigrant, greater insularity and greater levels of disaster. Those times call for the next big man, the next populist, and you can be sure as fuck he won't be as thick as Trump. The Sanders's will have been long shot. Biden himself isn't some evil chap, he's significantly better than Trump will be. What he isn't though, is someone who'll change things. Four more years of Trump might be horrendous for quite a few people (if we're honest, we'd probably agree that it hasn't been nearly as bad a four years under Trump as predicted for the majority), but it might just be enough to wake people up too. Otherwise you wait another 12-16 years for the next candidate who puts changing the system and challenging the status quo at the top of their agenda, and fuck knows what things will look like by then.

Aye, great turnaround like. Some top class saves again from Lewis in the first half, and they really deserved their lead. Ferguson maybe unlucky not to get a pen, but I reckon he dived. He did really well to get the ball ahead of Whittaker after great tackling from McGeouch for the sending off and led the team forward superbly. He's had a good 2020 like, really starting to show what he can do. Considine again shows his value in attack but also coping well in difficult conditions. Hopefully Clarke was watching. A good game all round. Lots of goals and a lot of battling in poor weather. Anderson's movement was excellent when he came on to. McLennan wasn't pish for the second game running.

Not overall, no. Just had a poor half. Letting the ball run away from him and the like. Came onto a decent game in the end. Think he'll turn out to be a great signing over the next 18 months. His cross for McLennan was top drawer. If he can work on that, we'll have a player.

Agree with yer analysis TC, however Taylor was booked for dissent I believe rather than the handball. It was simply an incorrect decision as per the rules of the game. It doesn't matter whether the shot was on target or not (according to the rules). There was no daylight between his arm and his body. The ref has made a spur of the moment decision, and he got it totally wrong. He should have taken a second or two to think it through and, if he had, he wouldn't have given it. Hopefully the ref coaches have a word with him. It was a really poor call.

I'd be more concerned about the actual voting system itself, the prevention of many people voting and the media swing toward Biden. It's a fucked up thing like. I think the West needs four more years of Trump to really get their faces ground into the mud so they can see what a fucking awful form of capitalism they've created. If any single person then still thinks that Joe fucking Biden is the answer to anything, ever, then they should be forced into a further 8 years of Mike Pence shitting in their mouths.

Maybe it was the first 20 of the second half then. Either way, you missed a good proportion of the dons' best minutes so your probably not best placed to say. Again, the subs could have been on earlier as they started to get back into it around 65-70 minutes.

Good game like. We dominated the first 25 of the second, but didn't manage to get ahead. A fair result. Despite the ref's totally shite decision, they deserved their 2 goal lead. We deserved to get it level. A good battle, and a decent away performance. Much better from McLennan (apart fae his stupid booking).

Interesting first half like. Killie all over us for the first 30 minutes. Ridiculous penalty, Taylor's arms clearly tucked into his body. A complete misunderstanding of the rules from the ref: "the ball touches a player's hand/arm close to their body and has not made their silhouette unnaturally bigger." Arms by the side would have made him no bigger, there was no (or little) gap between Taylor's body and arms. Anyway, fantastic goal in response. Great ball from McLennan, and you always want McGinn on the end of those. We're doing okay, but Kennedy is struggling and I still think Main is pap. Not sure about Devlin at LCH either.

Hearing that McKenna might be out for the rest of the season. Will be sorely missed, Devlin on his wrong foot is an accident. Hopefully Leigh back soon and move Considine into LCH. Ridiculously, we're in March and I still get the impression that the best first 11 is difficult to name. I'd go: Lewis Logan Taylor Devlin Considine McGinn Ojo Ferguson Kennedy Main Cosgrove Despite the fact that I don't think Cosgrove and Main make a great pairing, we should really give it a decent try.

"Cup runs can invigorise the team" Sam Cosgrove, 29/2/20 Get that one on a t-shirt. He did well when he came on

Some goal from Ferguson like, having a great game. We're doing well in difficult conditions. Need another goal.

Ojo back thankfully. Looks like a back four, with mcginn supporting Main. Despite his stupid fuck up against county, glad to see Campbell given another start.

I thought they got cancelled at the winter break?

Aye, wasn't great like. As others have said, the sub should have come straight away. I think McInnes was in a difficult situation however, because he had to take off either Main or Cosgrove and it would have been a blow to either player's confidence. He should still be making that call, and not doing it cost us the game. Although Campbell sold his teammates with his bookings. In fairness to the ref, they were both blatant bookings. I don't think Cosgrove and main will work out together, so we need to revert for the st mirren game. Hopefully the weather will have improved by next weekend too as the conditions didn't help the game at all.

Great tribute from McInnes to Consi there. Deserves it, he's ace. Also said he was hoping to hold out until half time in normal time because he was very concerned by our play, which speaks volumes as to how poor McGeouch and Bryson must have been. We'll let him (McInnes) off for it tonight. Hopefully we kick on from here.

Hope ye didnae leave early?

I pished myself just after Cosgrove scored. It was worth it just to hear the winning goal go in.

Holy pishflaps, that was some listen. Shove that up yer champions cunting league you fucks.

Sounds like the changes worked in terms of improved performance. McGeouch hasn't looked up to it since he's arrived, not looked fit. Bryson is unlikely to be fit either, so I suspect an element of enforced change through both performance and fitness.

Yassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Especially as McGeouch has been poor so far. Bryson, McGeouch and Ferguson has the same ring to it as Ojo, McGeouch and Ferguson.

But that's the point. If we have one single entity called AFC, whose footballing operations (girls+boys) makes X amount of money, how can the club legally justify splitting it's footballing salaries down specific gender lines? You've done yer legal stuff in the past, how do you think that could be justified? It seems really open to challenge in my mind like. A total minefield. As I say, I can't think of a single organisation that would operate on that revenue-based-salary approach other than for things like bonuses. I'm in total agreement that the way you suggest is probably/likely the way it should work, but I've a feeling that something (or someone) will occurr at some point soon that challenges that. It's interesting like.

Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit? Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing). Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City). Where I don't see any of the above being an issue is in women's fitba. They don't operate within the same league, the Scottish Cup isn't run in parallel with the Scottish Cup - Women's draw, nor the World Cup in parallel with the women's. If that were to become the case then there could be merit in pay parity. The bottom line is that clubs like the dons have seen an avenue in which to make money from the women's game. They've seen a market. If it comes to it that AFC have employees working full-time, playing the same number of games, in the top league of their gender side of a draw then I think AFC will have to - at some point - face the issue that a man in their employment gets X amount to do their job, with a women getting Y to do the same role. Much the same as every office does. We've all likely been in a situation where a worker (male or female) gets paid more/less/same than us despite doing a worse/better job but they have been there longer or have the same role but are shitter at it. I can't think of a good example of a company where one division will get paid more than another for doing the same job simply because that division makes more money (I'm sure it happens). I'm playing devil's advocate slightly of course, but it's clearly not a clear cut issue (and I disagree entirely about tennis), and it would be interesting to see if it stands up in court, when the inevitable time comes. I'd like to see AFC birds have their own separate legal entity, leagues and association and so on to be sure that the two were segregated completely. Even more so when it comes to setting up the cheeks version of mens-bigotry-lite - I see a massive opportunity for the girls to do something completely different to the men. Where I see "gender equality" being a thing is in the assimilation of AFC girls and boys at all. I'm not sure, however, if it's being done to promote gender equality or as an attempt to make sure that a market is not missed out on. I'd say that it's probably the latter and so, in the true traditions of capitalism, you get what you deserve in that regard.

Expect a back 3 on Sunday, as I expect that's why we were experimenting with it against Hamilton and the Killie game. The main reason I think we're seeing it is because the Tims are currently deploying a 3-5-2 and McInnes likes to match up. I think Logan was given a run out last night because McInnes intends to take him in instead of McLennan, making it more like a 5-3-2. I think he might go Main and Cosgrove and drop Kennedy, with McGinn out wide. I'd rather see a more mobile player alongside Main/Cosgrove, but I can imagine McInnes thinking it might work. Will be interesting.

Aye, Considine deserves huge credit, has had a great season again and Devlin could learn a thing or two from him about distribution - he nearly always plays an actual pass out of defence rather than a punt (although Devlin did manage to cross the ball well a couple of times). But, yes, it was just Hamilton. I think that back 3 would really struggle with the pace of the Tim. The distance between Considine, McKenna and Devlin was great to see, as was the number of times that either one of them was high up the pitch getting involved in play, but that's also very easy to exploit for a team as good as the Tim. I totally agree about seeing McGinn close to Main through the middle. It was great to see, and his movement really helped. It's frustrating that this hasn't been done with Cosgrove and McGinn, especially when Cosgrove was mis-firing and needed the additional help. It's almost like he can only play one way with Cosgrove in the team, yet I think Cosgrove and McGinn would be significantly better than Main and McGinn given the opportunity. It will be very interesting to see if Campbell gets in ahead of McGeouch on Sunday. McGeouch has been average since he came and doesn't yet look fit. With Ojo improving and Ferguson doing better last night, McGeouch is clearly the weak link in there. With Bryson returning that may give us something more in the coming weeks too.