RicoS321

Right.... but they also got Simon Murray (now left) and the boy McLaren (think that was his name), so a 1 in 3 success rate for their scouting. Neither were an improvement on May or Rooney. Even Kamberi isn't that great, but an improvement on what we've got I'd agree. However, their scouting hasn't picked up a goalkeeper that could lace Lewis' boots, or a fullback better than Logan. We have to accept that there is a lot of luck involved in signings, espceially loanees like Kamberi was (I'm 100% certain he wasn't the find of a vast Hibees Swiss-based scouting network). I'm not seeing hibs picking up consistently high calibre signings without error, nor any other team in the SPL (Motherwell or Killie perhaps). The reality is that we're both operating in a tight market with little funds to spend and the margins between getting a good player and a shite one are small, and they probably aren't the barometer of good scouting. Is there any evidence that backs up the assertion that widening the scouting network gets better returns? Are there teams who are getting a higher percentage return that us on their signings year on year? If so, which ones and in which period?

[ What's baffling about it? It's very clear that the position has been a priority, but also very clear that we're struggling to fill it. Striker is probably the hardest position on the park to fill (there are an abundance of shite strikers in Scottish - and wider - fitba), and the most expensive as they're the most in demand. I don't rate May or Cosgrove (yet), but they're not totally shite either. It's not as simple as going out and getting the first available striker safe in the knowledge that they'll be good enough, we have to get better - and significantly better - than what we've already got. We were apparently looking at paying £300K+ for Eoin Doyle who is, at best, a tiny improvement on May, which shows the difficulty. As soon as you get into the higher fees then you're outbid for guys like Marquis and the other options being looked at who might be an improvement. Also, there isn't a ready made striker in the SPL that we can pinch either where we know our wage offerings will be an improvement. The obvious signing last season was Moult, but there isn't an obvious one this season. Last season we also had a huge opportunity to immediately re-coup our signing fees through progression in Europe (if we'd bought a striker before Apollon), whereas with the Burnley draw we're likely (realistically) to get punted at the first hurdle and the purchase will be a sunk cost immediately - there is no option of a gamble with good odds, so it's unlikely we can afford to spend a huge amount (>£500K) on a player. I don't think it's baffling at all. I just think we have to accept that it's a very difficult market to operate in and that when we start to get down to our 4th and 5th choices then the margins for improvement make the purchase less worthwhile. We know it's a target, but it may take longer to get that target. There isn't a significant worthwhile gamble in throwing cash at a player for zero european return. We'll get a player before the end of the window, but we just have to accept that it won't be straight forward, and perhaps not before the start of the season.

"Loan" and "Wide" I assume! Took me a few seconds.

Cheers, just did them a second ago! Difficult ones like, they all could go either way. England are actually the most likely to get a result in my opinion.

14 goals and 11 bookings last season. That'll do nicely.

Watched Secret City on Netflix. Very good Oz production, with some good characters and a well scripted bit of political intrigue. Worth a watch.

Lower posh seats. Ususally only £20-24 I think. It's my season ticket seat, so haven't had to purchase for a "big game" for a while so maybe I'm doing them a disservice. It's maybe always that expensive. Just to let everyone know, I've safely secured my ticket for the away game #superfan #topdon.

Got my home leg tickets today. £28! Clearly milking the Engerland opposition with the assumption that we won't get further in the tournament. Fair enough I suppose, but whoorin expensive.

I've never been living proof of anything other than: being a cunt can sometimes be rewarding. And in this case I'm clearly a fraud too. Season tickets plus cup and euro games has got me where I am in points. With the purchase of the home Burnley leg I was able to break the 165 point barrier by a couple. Leaving aside my lack of attendance and refusal to sign up to DNA, wear or purchase any club memorabilia, I am pretty much the number one fan.

Not seen Widowmaker, will watch it. Seen some of his other videos like, but never subscribed to his channel. Will check a few more. He's a technical guy, but makes things reasonably simple for us simpletons. Easy to listen to.

Like owning shares in any other company, you have the redeemable value of the shares plus the opportunity to turn up at the AGM and voting rights. That anything more was ever promised was astonishingly stupid and short-sighted. Let alone that it would be promised in perpetuity. I understand any complaints though, entirely. Just to add, I'm over 165 loyalty points and I don't have DNA membership. It seems that DNA is worth significantly more than attending away matches though. It's problematic. Whether directly or indirectly, it'll be being used to fund Kingsford too.

Away game min.

I don't really go to many games these days. I'm just a points whore.

It's okay guys, I'm in phase 1. Sincerely, Superfan

Fuck, forgot my picks for yesterday (Uruguay v Portugal of which I'd have got right). Can I claim it anyway? That's the problem with these things for me, if they're not something you can do in one visit to the internet, I forget. Fuck knows how folk can do thon fantasy fitba shite, it must be like a full time job.

Is it just me that finds twitter a really shite tool for navigating? I don't really use it, but I'm part of the club. It took me about twenty minutes to find the full conversation and by that point it had lost its edge.

Transfermarkt has him signed for Dundee... https://www.transfermarkt.com/jon-aurtenetxe/profil/spieler/89726 Edit: Apologies, mis-read. Now without club (or as of this weekend). Was with Dundee last season, I don't remember him.

I don't think Rooney's done either, but it was obvious years ago that he was of limited utility against good teams due to his lack of pace, regardless of wide players. Hence why Stockley, despite being pap, was regularly given the nod. The jury is out on May, he hasn't been a good striker since his St Johnstone days in reality. I'd give him a bit more time, but it's an exceptionally high-risk strategy for an entire half season. I wouldn't go for any old Schalk for the sake of it though, but we need a striker that can take us to the next level. Everyone on here was screaming out for that prior to the Apollon away game (Rooney was injured but also in poor form) and it was glaringly obvious in the prior cup final (where we had Hayes and McGinn) and I don't see that anything's changed with the introduction of May. We simply won't win more than our share against the Tim, Hun (probably not Hibs either) or in Europe with the existing strike force. To me, it'll be the difference between finishing second or fourth.

I have a gripe with Shearer if I'm honest. Do you think he's ever left England to watch a game involving any of the other teams that he's commenting on? Given the presumed salary, do you think that should be the minimum expectation for a BBC commentor (similarly Lawrenson)? Given these guys are ten-a-penny (replace Shearer with any other previous England striker for interchangeable analysis), I think that there should be something extra that these guys should be providing - some useful insight. I rarely hear anything from Shearer that is anything other than you'd expect from a contestant on Catchphrase (see what you see, Alan). There certainly appears to be no expectation on him to do any research whatsoever into any of the teams and players he is watching, their coaching methods, previous games etc. If there is, then he doesn't bring it forward in his analysis. I think he'd be perfectly capable of it too, it's not a personal thing, he's nae stupid. It's just that his fame has allowed him to remain unquestionably ignorant. Compare with Sone's sister and Alex Scott who've clearly done their homework and been sent to do research. I don't know enough about Dixon or Neville to say. It appears that they've been matched on their personality rather than knowledge though (Neville the contentious knob, Dixon the reasonable one, Shearer flitting between both as it suits), which is maybe what more people are after I suppose. Maybe I'm trying to hold the BBC to too high a standard. They should have had it all on BBC4 with half time shortened Storyville documentaries detailing the political situation in each country and how it is mirrored in its approach to fitba.

But ignored the more detailed post under it written before your post, which clearly refutes your poor response about chips on shoulders: If you ignore the typo on "coverage" of course. I've very much enjoyed the world cup.

I'm assuming the "before moving on to other targets" is the dross though? It must be a difficult balancing act like. You want a player who will definitely improve your team, but he's holding out in case another team come in. Meanwhile, you're registering an interest in your backup player without letting him know that the's second choice to the player that you actually want. It's easy for us to look on from the sidelines, but there are so many outside factors involved when signing a player that are outwith the manager and club's control. It'd be interesting to see a list of the players actually wanted versus those signed over the last few years.

That's nowhere in their remit as national broadcaster. I'm not a hun, I don't boycott things because I dislike a program. BBC have some excellent programs. I have no other option than to use it to watch world cup matches (atrocious internet connection at home). Furthermore, as I stated earlier, it has nothing to do with England being the only home nation. If Scotland qualified, the coverage would have been exactly the same. Lineker would have still presented his smarmy bullshite after Germany were caned. The evidence for this is at the last Euros (featuring sideshows of NI and Wales) and previous tournaments. This isn't being done because England are the only home nation, and that shouldn't be used to justify it if it was; England isn't the only nation being served by the BBC, which is the point. Ahh, so you didn't read my point then? I'm not, and have not, requested "Scottish" coverage of the world cup. I'm asking for a non-partisan presentation of the entire tournament as a celebration of football, with great insight into all the teams on show. A really strong show with none of the jingoism and England previews that are completely unnecessary, and a turn-off for a 10M populace that isn't in England. Something that gets right to the heart of the tournament and tells us stuff we didn't previously know. Then, above this, good quality shows that individually represent the home nation(s) and partisan coverage on match day. Before anyone brings up any ridiculous argument ("that's just the way it is/always been" type non-argument), I am very aware that nothing is going to change. I'm merely discussing this on a fitba forum to see if anyone has any other views, and what everyone else's idea of good coverage would be. I think it has a huge impact on non-fitba television and politics in general and, as Rocket suggests, is pervasive in other areas too. I'm not annoyed by the coverate either, I'm disappointed by it. I think it's a great opportunity missed.

Dutch coverage isn't forced upon Belgians or French though is it? That's the entire point.

I don't believe this. Not in a McInnes team. His workrate isn't high enough. Unless that dramatically changes under McInnes, which is doubtful (at his age), then I'd have him nowhere near our wide areas or attacking midfield. He's very similar to Stewart in that regard, and of average pace too. We do need a striker though. Can't believe anyone who watched us last season doesn't think so. We've only got Cosgrove who appears to be able to play against better opposition, and that could be an anomoly. However, it needs to be a striker who is better than what we've got and that isn't Schalk. Edit: Aye Manc, we should offload when we get someone in.

Exactly, so it's not really relevant to the point I'm making then. Interesting nonetheless, I'm not criticising!