RicoS321

Did I read that right? Callum Davidson was playing for Saints? I thought he was retired? Aye, a few years ago. Edit: Aye, I read it right. Heap of pish though. Murray. Forgot about him. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40475664

Good player. Would far rather him than May if honest. Could ditch Stockley too I'd think as Moult will do that job as well as being a good finisher, and not slow either. Although both would be fine and ship Stockley and Storey.

Torino or Copenhagen probably. Sociedad was actually a pretty good game too.

Good stuff min. Have a simmie.

Neither had AOC. Welcome aboard Sean Machoir.

Aye, I don't see it. He'd have to gamble on getting a hell of a lot more out of him. Depends on budget of course, but I don't see him offering him anything more than a sub role.

All clubs in Scotland should be releasing a similar statement. This isn't a Tim v Hun situation, and we shouldn't let it be portrayed as such. AT covered it nicely on the channel 4 news. The BBC, after hanging Mark Daly out to dry by ignoring his excellent piece of journalism uncovering the extent of Murray's connivance, continue to provide a biased coverage of events.

Whataboutery at the end aside, you've made some glaring errors there. They were not relegated or demoted. They re-applied to join the league and were admitted at the bottom(ish) level without being required to go through the various fit and proper tests that should have occurred. It's a hugely important point, because it unequivocally shows up your other statement "RFC were punished - no point denying they were not punished - not true" as complete horseshit. The fans may have felt like they were being punished. It might have been a difficult time for them. But in straight fitba rules terms they were absolutely, factually and unarguably not punished (other than £250K payable by Craig Whyte, which was never recovered to my knowledge). This is backed up by the fact that at one stage there were two hun teams' memberships in the league structure.

Aye, that was my thought. From memory, they tried to play him into form at Wednesday hence the number of games but it didn't really work. I think Neil will want someone better.

Totally agree, has to be unassigned. The Tim one-upmanship aside, the re-incarnation of der hun has been an absolute disaster for our game and its credibility throughout. The title stripping would go some way toward re-establishing that. I have no desire to see them punished, or others rewarded, but a simple recognition that you can't win by cheating is all that's required here. As well as HMRC taking Ibrox from its present owners and turning it into a slaughterhouse.

Nope. I'd think it far more likely that they'd go after BDO, which would be the correct thing to do. The club are the ones that structured the payments, they're the ones that should pay (or not, given the liquidation). Hopefully, HMRC will try and seize Iprix given that Whyte was deemed innocent, ergo Murray sold the club illegally to avoid the assets being taken by HMRC. Anyway, interesting coverage this morning on the BBC with Chris McLaughlhun. The pathetic wording around "the company that now own the club" shite, pandering to the hun instead of taking them to task as usual. Again, the disgrace that was the Nimmo inquiry again being shown up for both it's incorrectness and deliberate mis-timing. That should be torn up and titles should be stripped. Or are we happy that cheating occurred in our game and should not be recognised?

It's got fuck all to do with Scottish clubs. This is the hun thread for abusing the hun. Any other shite can fuck off.

Get if fuckin up you Jack you hun cunt. Yasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

I disagree like. I'm not convinced Neil will think he'll be able to get enough out of May to get him to perform in that league. Certain players just don't gel in specific leagues, and I reckon May is one of them.

I agree. And if I could choose either as a squad player it'd be McNaughton, who can play across the entire back line. ETA: Also, only a few months older than Maloney in - arguably - a less physically demanding role.

Very loose use of the word exactly....

Good stuff. Good luck to him. Good to see young loons travelling the world a bit. The championship or similar was never going to be a good place for a player like McGinn.

Aids?

There was a "behind the goal" linesman about two inches from it who should have spotted it. I think the blatant Lafferty types aren't worth the technology being implemented, they are few and far between and end in decent suspensions for the players (in theory). The problems with the technology were obvious from the few games that have been shown. The ref not using the video when they perhaps could/should have. The refs getting harassed at every slightly contentious moment to use the technology, the dicking about under pressure from managers. The inability to accept a decision from another source/ref, so the existing ref must be the one to check the video. The mistaking of "contact" with foul - usually an issue only for idiot commentators, but occasionally not fully understood by refs (i.e. just because there is contact - in a contact sport - doesn't mean there is a foul). There was plenty others as well as it just being a shite process overall. We're trying to do things arse about tit in fitba with this nonsense. We simply don't have the respect for the referee, the consistency (and ease) of decision making, the transparency and the respect of the sport and players of referees (i.e. ref arrogance) and the overwhelming abundance of cheating on the pitch during games. Once/if those things come about, then we'd be able to take a rugby view of the game. Otherwise, it'll just be an increased sham of the existing sham.

Despite his goal in the cup final, I thought Christie was largely anonymous. Certainly compared to McLean who was constantly available for the ball. Obviously, his deeper role allowed him that to an extent, but even when McLean plays higher up the park he gets more involved. In fact, I'd go to say that Christie has been anonymous in many of his games for us and - despite some excellent finishes - clearly not the finished article yet. I think he could be influential next season, but only if he improves or maintains a consistency of the form shown in his last couple of league games. Otherwise, completely agree about his form. Also to try and get McLean on a longer deal and maximise the return. I just don't think we need the cash desperately enough to take it in this window.

He does score though, just not as many as he should. But the signs are there that he's more than capable of adding to his goal tally for us. Even just looking at his time at St Mirren. Whilst his direct assists aren't great, the number of times he set us on a quick break by moving the ball quickly upfield and bringing others into play is noticeable. We'd have been a significantly worse team when we went on our unbeaten run around christmas if McLean wasn't in it. In fact, it was his re-introduction ahead of Maddison that set that run on its way. Anyway, my point was not that he was some world beater, but that our recruitment isn't strong enough to take the chance on replacing him. There's not a ready made replacement in the SPL and under McInnes we haven't been able to recruit more than two good players in a single window. I don't see that changing. We still haven't replaced Hayes and - as you say - Tansey isn't really a replacement for Jack, and we haven't even managed to replace Taylor. It's not a criticism of the players still there (we're exceptionally light squad-wise though), it's an understanding that we haven't replaced those that have left. As for Tansey. Having seen him play on many occasions, I don't think he's half the player that McLean is. Stronger perhaps, but nowhere near the same ability. I think he's a pretty underwhelming signing if honest, that might struggle to make the first team. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

I'd argue that we need to learn when not to sell players. McLean is better than most we'll get for the money we'll get for him. Not irreplaceable, of course, but we'd be taking a risk trying to replace him, Hayes, Jack and McGinn and expecting to get in similar or better. Given McInnes' signing sucess in recent years I'd say it's unlikely we'd manage it. We're not a club in debt anymore, and we got our transfer quota from the Hayes sale, there should be no need to sell more first team players. We're nae the arabs. In saying that, the one additional season ticket sale we'd get might make it worthwhile.

Hope not. McLean is a very good player with the potential to get better. We'd be seriously weak (not physically) without him. If he stays, he'll play every game next season. I don't think McInnes will let him go either.

Excellent. A perfect replacement for McGinn then.

Super Kev on the bench for the dons today!