RicoS321

Based on nothing, and contrary to the facts, as always. Why do folks read that hun shite still?

I'm 95% certain that's bollocks.

I think the 50-50 that we did a few years back is the best option, which is what we'll do. Unfortunately we're always going to have bad weather, and it seems to be more and more unpredictable too. If anything it advocates a move to summer fitba. The winter break certainly wasn't long enough to allow Pittodrie's surface to improve. It's why I've said for years that we need a big centre forward (ala Stockley) specifically for this time of year. Even the Tims were punting it long against us for large parts of our last game here. Our players have shown that they can play some really nice fitba on a good pitch, but they can't be expected to keep that same level of performance with such a sub-standard surface. It has to be a change in style over this period. I don't see Pittodrie recovering at any point this season either, it looks done.

It's amazing the number of times I use "won" instead of "one" these days, must be to do with phones, so I'm going to let you off with that een! Anyway, he's 100% correct. I mentioned it on another thread, and will continue to mention it, that over a period of 10 years in Engerlund studies showed a 90% correlation between player wages and league position. Neither Murty is bad enough, nor McInnes is good enough to overcome the existing gulf in wages in my opinion. Had they not "spent" in January, with their decent loanees (and employment of Jimmy Nic, which will make a difference) or had they kept the Portuguese wank then we'd have comfortably overcome them. In simple terms, I think they'll equal, or better, our points total from last season of 76. I think we're worse than last season and I don't think we'll quite reach that.

Not sure about that een like. Not much evidence presented there. Boy's a bit of a mintal case ina, having seen some of his pish before. He could be entirely correct, but he hasn't backed it up with any facts, just basic circumstance.

Surely an intelligent person would see that type of short-sighted approach for what it is? Individualism, to the extent that we have promoted it in this country, is the root of the vast majority of our problems. We either look out for others or we continue on the existing path. What you're describing is the status quo. Just because someone is ignorant - deliberately or otherwise - it doesn't mean they should be ignored.

He's had millions for a number of years now. I don't think it'll have an impact on his decision making. Becoming a dad might though, yer right. Or he might just feel that he can't get back to the top and doesn't want to fail. I'm with Kowalski though, I think he might surprise folks with a good comeback.

cunts

I think you're taking things too quickly.

It's all the partisan bull shit that gets me. It's fucking disgusting and the sign of a very backward setup. Corbyn (or whoever) can't ask legitimate questions without being branded a traitor. The phrase "[he should be] expected to condemn Russia" was also used. Do we really need to "condemn" anyone/anything? How the fuck does that help. We're fucking adults, have an adult discussion of the facts. The people of the UK don't need Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn to tell us how to think, just give us the facts. Any reasonable person who could see visible evidence of a Russian poisoning would rightly think it was an abhorrent act, we don't need to be told how to think about things. There was a weird phone in on BBC scotland yesterday which I caught a little bit of. Actual Scottish people phoning in suggesting that we impose sanctions or other bollocks. Who are these armchair specialists, and why do they feel so strongly? There simply isn't enough information in the public domain for us (the public) to make a definitive (informed) decision on whether there was a Russian sanctioned poisoning or not. Why do they act like they know otherwise, and with such confidence? It's like the idiots that wank on about "Economic Growth", parroting the shite they've heard being spouted constantly by politicians. I can't tell if in both instances it's just an attempt by individuals to make themselves sound more intelligent. There's no harm in saying "I don't know" in these instances. I certainly don't.

Agree with what Manc just said. The whole thing was engineered at association level. My theory all along has been that Murray deliberately sold the hun to Whyte to act as a fall-guy. Murray, over time, would then re-emerge on the scene to "save" them again. It started with the re-introduction of guys like Paul Murray and Johnston, who were clearly complicit in the prior on-goings (possibly not Paul Murray, I expect he was just stupid). Eventually we'll see David Murray testing the water in the media or with a small investment. There'll be the "I didn't know anything, it was Whyte" type interviews and it'll lead on from there. It's a fucking sinister club like.

As I said in my reply, I think he thought it would bounce comfortably through so he could pass back to the keeper. Check the bounce, it's unreal. He would have thought that retaining possession was better than lumping it out. Clearly he should know to deal with it on that pitch, especially as - on listening to the radio - that's what all the players were doing all game; hoofing the ball when uncertain. He's mis-read it completely, I'm just saying that there are mitigating circumstances. At any other pitch bar Hamilton, he'd have comfortably got that ball back to the keeper and we'd have started attacking again. ^^^This. When he does go forward, he invariably stops 25 yards out and puts in a floaty pish to the back post. If he does find himself further up, he squares it straight into the first man. I think his lack of attacking has been as bad as his lack of defending, where he seems to now stand off his man as standard (albeit I believe he wasn't doing that last night).

The two aren't mutually exclusive though. He should have dealt with it, but I reckon that was a foul all day long. It's Logan's fault, but the attacker pushes into him when he's jumping so it should be a foul. In defense of Logan (who I think has been terrible of late), I was expecting a much worse piece of defending. On any normal pitch that ball would have bounced half that height and he'd have been able to calmly turn and allow the ball to drift past him and pass back to the goalie. He's played on it enough that he should know of course, but it slightly mitigates his poor reading of it.

There's a cracking episode of South Park along similar lines.

Aye, it'll be interesting. Not sure how I'd set up for this one. We had a fantastic run of games where we scored 14 goals, but we seem to be trying to keep all our attacking players happy which is creating a lot of imbalance in the side. McGinn and Christie seem to be nullifying each other, and we're not getting the best out of either May or Rooney because we're either trying to play them both at once or neither are getting an extended run. I think we need to get back to basics and get our players sticking to their positions and showing a bit of formational discipline. Keep Rooney/May high up the park and McGinn/Christie tight to their wings and then gradually re-introduce the free roles that Christie and McGinn (and to an extent, McLean) have been adopting of late.

Do you think he was maybe faking it?

Could really be doing with Lewis and Devlin available for the semi like. Lewis can go in goals and we'll take Woodman on in the 119th minute as our penalty specialist. Devlin so that we can at least have the option of O'Connor in midfield. Otherwise we'll be looking at Arnie and perhaps Ball at right back. We could be doing with a young fullback coming through like.

Sounds about right. Dodds: "this could end up 0-0 after penalties". Sounds pretty tense.

Me and you it seems. Wild.

I've just bought an 10M telescopic driver for the two club rule.

In the same interview he says that our aim is to win the cup. He's definitely not talking the game down. Bit of balance wouldn't go amiss. We're on a poor run of form, but the hysterical reaction to everything a manager says when we're on one of these runs is a little over the top. Listen to his comments if you get a chance, they're positive and set us a target of winning the cup.

He's doing what every manager in the entire world of football does. No current manager in the game would ever say that his team are facing a "season-defining"; "must-win"; "insert cliched fitba pish here" game. You must have noticed that by now?

I'm not suggesting that's what you said. You're suggesting Murty is a better manager based on his bargain transfers. He has not "brought in quality at a (relatively) cheap price", he's brought in players that are significantly above our budget because he has a significantly higher budget.

You're deluded if you think we could have afforded Murphy, Goss and Martin (or even any one of the three) in January. We might have sneaked one with a huge amount of goodwill and wages being paid for us, but not with a hun offer on the table - we'd have been outbid in a shot. Jack will probably have doubled his wages going there in the summer too. They're at least three times our budget. Guys like Windass, Tavernier Candeis and even Morelos (despite his sitter-missing) are good - well paid - players that needed semi-competent coaching and organising. Murty has done absolutely zero to show that he's in the same league as Deek in terms of organising and running a club (hence why they needed Jimmy Nic). He's an assistant that's landed on his feet in terms of timing. Deeks tactics have been poor but that doesn't make Murty a genius. He's (Murty) got a massive amount of room for error.

That's an interesting squad like. The strikers are the main worry for me. Not much proven among that lot, but it'll be interesting to see Ryan Christie play as the main man.....