RicoS321

...in England

Nah, his job is to represent the residents. That means those that come to him to object - in this case against the dons proposal. He'll have had a fair number of folk objecting, so he picks a side (based on political prudence) and fights that side. So he's representing them in the best way he possibly can by making hysterical comments not based on fact (he may or may not believe his hysterical pish). His job is definitely not to go through "due diligence" with the club, as he's not interested in their opinion before the planning decision, he's there to obstruct them. That's how politics works. If enough folk had hassled him, sent him email and turned up at his constituency office to speak to him about the benefits he'd be representing them. Because that is his job. A planning officer will weigh up whether his objections are pish or not, and quickly conclude that they are. Anyway, I'm just glad you didn't read the daily record.

I just cyber-bummed you. Right in the hoop. Because your gay.

Club just released this. http://www.afc.co.uk/stadium.php Some good stuff, I doubt the locals have a leg to stand on. The 12,500 has been reduced to 12,000....

My main objection to the system is that it isn't applied to specific statements. So now Donsdaft disnae ken why folks think he's a dick. Surely that's the point of them, otherwise it's just bullying.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Surely his job is to represent his constituents and this is just political prudence? It's a rock and a hard place for him really, isn't it? The residents don't want anything build, no compromises, so there's nothing for him to discuss with AFC. It'll go through regardless of his opinion, so why ingratiate himself to the club rather than the people who vote for him? It's not laziness, just that there is nothing for him to discuss. If the club get permission, then it would make sense for him to have a meeting to discuss parking and so forth. He's probably a dick like, but that's neither here nor there. Or you could just not read the Daily Record, that would help.

Interesting. Storie was a wee bit short in my opinion last season in certain areas and nae quite ready for the first team, however with some hard work on his part I think he could have made it. I automatically assume that the manager's caution is what holds these youngsters back, but we don't see what goes on behind the scenes I suppose. Whilst I still think there is too much caution shown by McInnes in blooding youngsters, perhaps I'm doing him a disservice if the youngsters are letting him down. However, that has to be two way, and Storie not putting in the work is an indictment of McInnes as much as the guy himself. Anyway, in centre midfield, I think we now have to put the whole Shinnie in left back thing to bed and accept that he sees himself as a central midfielder. He's played very well there on numerous occasions and him and Jack are definitely our best pairing. I think we should set him the challenge by getting another strong midfielder in there to compete for position, but I'm not convinced that this is the window to do that in, unless on a 6 month loan or something (I don't believe we'll have the available options in Jan). Our cover against injury is Hayes, Pawlett and if desperate O'Connor. We have limited time to do business, the midfield will just have to be a risk we take (I think a Shinnie suspension will be more likely than injury, so perhaps he can engineer a suspension against a pish team at home). I'd like to see a striker in with Storey (and perhaps Stockley) getting shipped. A full back to compete with Considine and perhaps another wide player on loan too to replace Burns.

Yep, that is correct. Nobody has seen him since he played for Oldham.

Based on what? The board are tight, but there nae stupid. They'll know Hayes is likely the difference between finishing second and third, and they'll know the value in finishing second over third, versus the drop in price if Hayes leaves in the summer. It's not like we're cashing in on a guy with six months left. Hayes is very consistent and he won't lose significant value between now and summer, especially if the player suggests he might look for a move. We're debt free, and the call to sell is no longer there in the way it was previously. Duncan Fraser managed to get £600K for Lee Miller (or was it Strachan doing his mate a favour?), so he kens how to drive a deal.

Nit, Livi. You're thinking of the other Argentinian guy who used to play for Killie then us: Gary MacDonald.

Taylor had one fantastic clearing header in the first half, which showed why he's in the team (cause it's nae for his ability to kick the fitba), and he's been quite solid in our winning run.

McKenna getting a tanking from Shankland. Have to admit, I wasn't massively convinced by McKenna or Shankland when I saw either of them play for the dons. Neither have looked particularly good today.

Jack mentioned his celebration in his interview on youtube. Apparently you had to be in Dubai to understand it. Luckily he doesn't have to use it often. The big point regarding this thread - 5 in a row - is whether or not we'll play the same team against the Tim. Surely Deek must realise his errors against the cheeks the last time out and play to our strengths. Why change a winning team, etc. I can see him bottling it (and it is bottling it) and shoe-horning O'Connor in there somehow. Hopefully he'll take note of Dundee's performance yesterday, which showed how difficult it is to change your mindset half way through a game and attack when yer already chasing it. One plus point is that Christie will be unavailable so we won't have to dick about trying to get him in the team (not suggesting he's pish, just that Deek does like a fuck about from time to time).

But surely that risk is being massively overstated by Deek? There are plenty of games where we've been comfortable but the youngsters haven't featured. Comfortable in the sense that if we took on one young player for one player that is perhaps tiring or just not having a great game that our airses wouldn't collapse and we end up losing the game. We have raised our standard to the extent that we're good enough to carry a young loon if required.

12,500. 20,000 if we play it in Westhill.

You could be right like, Hector would back up yer point, but McKenna would go against it. I don't think it's anything particular to England is what I'm saying, more to do with a player's general physical growth and the time they come through into the team. Given they're playing in a league where the players are significantly more athletic than those up here, it is to be expected that those who have managed to break into the team are of requisite strength, it's all relative. In other words, if yer average youngster is 30% less muscular than a senior player up here, it's probably a similar ratio down there. I'm not an avid Match of the day watcher, but I've seen it enough to have heard them talk of young players just needing to improve the physical side of their game to make them the next big thing. The main point being though, that it's something that's easy to work on once the player has fully developed, as opposed to skills and that a lot of it has to do with confidence. Having played a few times at a shite level myself you often tend to be hunner mile an hour and unsure of tackling until you settle in and get yer first few boots up in the air. Each level is a new learning experience too, so it may take players a good few hundred minutes (15-20 decent length sub appearances) of game time to get used to the pace and physical side of a game in the first team. We should be looking to provide that experience before judging, and I can think of about 10 games this season where that would have been possible.

Really? Maddison? I just don't buy this. Nor do I buy that there's an issue with toughness and mental strength that can't be overcome quickly and easily with more game time. Players gain confidence and strength the more they play. Storie didn't exactly lack mental and physical strength when he played against the tims at Pittodrie, he slotted straight in, but it was clear he needed much more opportunity to play in order to develop. As it stands, he's regressed through lack of opportuntity, and we've probably set him back another couple of years and I doubt he'll make it with us. I'm not suggesting we start youngsters, but regularly giving them 20 minutes isn't beyond a club of our standing. We have a good first 11 that could easily guide a youngster through 20 minutes here and there.

It would make a fucking ace wall. Much better than Trump's shite.

He said that? Jesus, that's worrying. I understand his position, but there is another side to that. Guys like Wright, Ross, McKenna, Storie etc definitely have a lot of positives to their game, if we can develop those by giving them game time then that will surely take them to the next level? Also, it is worrying that we can't give Wright a chance in the last twenty minutes in games for fear that we might capitulate. Surely it can't be worse than being a man down, or even just a McGinn/McLean/Shinnie not firing? I'm singling out Wright, because he plays in a position where it is generally easier to give a player a shot as it is not as critical defensively. As an aside, I think Ross looks like he might be a player. Looks like he's got all the attributes bar the physical strength, which can be built on.

That's fucking nuts. Who puts their bed in such a ridiculous position?

But he's clearly corrupt as fuck himself. Channel 4 making a deal of his links with Goldman Sachs (via his appointments) - obviously that would never have happened under Clinton, but that doesn't mean Trump isn't at it. Similarly, his bollocks about investigating election fraud, which is clearly a continuation of/opportunity to further the corrupt GOP's hammering of the poor and ethnic minorities to ensure that their votes don't count. A practice that was funded by the non-establishment Koch billionaires on Trump's behalf in this past election, winning him some key states. He's a corrupt fuck, and that he his completely correct in his criticism of the press, completely correct in his attacks on the establishment, that doesn't make him any less likely to use that to his advantage whilst not doing anything to prevent those in power taking from those not. He's a product of 20 years of political bankruptcy. Of failure to ask questions and the dumbing down of discussion. Here's a good piece from Pilger: http://johnpilger.com/articles/this-week-the-issue-is-not-trump-it-is-ourselves-

Literally. It seems a poor statement by Plymouth. We don't want rapists at our club would have been a far better statement. If he'd served his time, showed remorse, I'd be more inclined to suggest he deserved a second chance. I was uncomfortable when we signed him, because he was clearly a rapist who got away with it, I didn't think it sent out a great message to our female supporters. It was a very avoidable situation for us.

Great point. I think he's cover for McLean, or sub to come on for Considine leaving Jack in the holding role with Christie and McLean in front if we're struggling to break teams down. Similar to what Maddison was doing from the bench more recently. Our best form has been with Shinnie in midfield alongside Jack at the start of the season and just before the break, so I don't see that being disrupted. If Christie turns out to be better (than I expect anyway) then he'll probably just take the place of McLean, with perhaps McLean moving out wide if McGinn our Hayes get injured or off form. He certainly provides cover that we need more than the Tims. I'm with Dolly about being uncomfortable with loan signings in the same league. However, if anything, it's in the Tims' best interests to have the huns return straight to second. The bigot duopoly is perfect for their business. I do understand the loan from Deek's point of view though, it's pragmatic and easy. It'll be interesting to see how the fans take to him.

I'm not sure how it helps us to develop and improve a Scottish player (nor am I sure why it matters that he's Scottish) only for him to return to a rival. I don't think anyone really gives a fuck about the tweet. I also don't think he's that good. He's not as good as Maddison, and he's definitely not better than McLean either. I dinna think he'll be in McInnes's thinking to replace Shinnie in midfield, more likely he may come on in games if we're struggling to break teams down, then move Shinnie to left back rather than him starting there. But he's certainly nae shite either, so he'll get a decent amount of game time. If we were struggling for other options in what is a difficult window, then it's nae a bad move. Pragmatic given Celtic's 20 point gap too, rather than inspired.