RicoS321

Fuck sake, Robson off injured! Awesome cameo.

I'd probably take on Robson...... Fucking brilliant. Church again.

Aye, he's fuckin ace

Aye, but she's tidy.

Some cunt has it on periscope like, but he's a pished bellend, so it's not worth watching (although quite a good picture when he keeps up with play).

At the moment he's probably our most consistent centre half. I like Considine. He can play football, which is more than can be said for Reynolds and Taylor (not that I have a problem with either of them). He's been above average in our first 11 for the last 4 seasons I'd say. Still prone to the odd mistake, although I think these are mostly over-stated due to the time it took for him to settle into our first team when he was younger, where he was far more error-prone. Tims aside (normally, not at the moment), I think he'd walk into any SPL team.

Aye, that's the cunt, against ICT. Although, was he not replaced by Bobby Madden? To be fair to him, he's not been that bad since that day.

Nope. Believe they are still having meetings with the council in regard to the out of town shitehole.

Real shame, thought he played well against Utd, and this was his chance to get a run in the team. Fairly brave of him to come out for the second half, he clearly was in pain! I doubt we can rely on him for next season and expect it'll be his last chance. Our squad is thin and we need all the players fit for the remainder of the season.

Also, we're forgetting, Bell was a fairly average SPL 'keeper when he was at Killie. No better than Samson, McGovern etc. when they were performing at their best. It's just not worth the hassle, when half the fans - including me - will dislike him immediately for fucking off to play part-time football for his heroes. I would accept it if he made a statement saying that he was young stupid and took some bad advice, but I doubt he feels this way.

That's surprising. A shame really, it was clearly the obvious choice. They've never been concerned what season ticket holders thought before, or paid attention to surveys, so I suspect somebody more important must have questioned it. It's not acceptable to re-locate some supporters to another part of the ground, but it is acceptable to move the entire stadium to a foggy shitehole out of town? Anyway, if I'm reading it correctly, the merkland is now going to be half family stand, half singing section? Seems a strange combination!

Gads, I'd rather hae Rogers than Bell. F'n hun fuck. Worse than Alexander (other ex'hun fuck) too. I'd be surprised if Rogers accepted a new deal to be no 2, but good move for us if he is willing to. I'm assuming the other 'keepers are leaving then, which is good. I thought Marshall was only on a year's contract as coach too, so it'll be interesting to see if we hang onto him for the future.

Ahh, okay, that makes sense then. Cheers. I couldn't find it anywhere in the rules. I suppose, in his own warped mind, Madden has it right and there are no rules to suggest otherwise. I think it could be argued that the Utd player makes enough of an attempt to get out of Shinnie's way, but Shinnie is running at full pelt and has little option other than to run into the player - it's certainly not a dive. Like the decision at the weekend, and Collum's against ICT, you have to really be looking to give a decision against a particular player or team to come to the conclusion that all 3 came to in their respective matches. I'm not suggesting anti-dons conspiracy, more that they are looking for offences that aren't actually there (regardless of team). I feel a bit better now that you've confirmed the rules though! @ayrshire - totally agree about Robson. Fantastic decision to play him. Exactly the type of sore loser we needed after Saturday. He'd have been as pissed off as anyone that we didn't get the points against Saints, and we needed players with a bit of anger in them last night. Also, I've always thought his game compliments Jacks nicely and the two of them performed brilliantly as a pairing last night, with Jack playing some great passes at times. I'd also stick with them for next week's game. Flood has his benefits, but I do feel that Jack has to be more disciplined (play within himself) when Flood is there because he is unpredictable. Robson will maybe lose his man occasionally, but his positional play is far more natural than Flood's, and easier to read and play alongside.

I've just seen it again. I can see why he hasn't given the penalty, sort of (it's a huge stretch), it could be argued that the player pulled out of the challenge (I disagree, obviously). But there is absolutely no foul from Shinnie in the incident, so it should have been play on. Madden has got the rules wrong, and I think that our club need to take that angle and ask for clarification. No conspiracy talk, or accusation, just clarification of the rules regarding the game being stopped for alleged diving.

Rolf Harris got 5 years for 12 indecent assaults on 4 girls. Albeit, that seemed lenient, the 5-10 years for Johnson seems extreme. It seems like this case is being used as "an example". Something that should never happen, ever. There needs to be a consistent sentencing for these types of offence, which would probably leave the Sunderland paedo with about 6-12 months suspended sentence which would seem fair for a fingering.

Haven't seen the highlights, but it was blatant in real time too. I can't of any other infringement that would result in a yellow card. The problem is that a dive is not a free-kick, so the game should have continued and our goal counted, then Shinnie booked. I've had a look at the rules, and can't find anything relating to diving that says a free-kick should be given. If Madden has got the rules wrong, then that's a far worse offence than the horrendous decision not to give us a penalty and book Shinnie. It's ridiculous that we will never even find out what the card was given for, and now Shinnie can't be far from suspension for accumulated cards.

Just back. Cracking result, and some good performances. Interesting, as we looked far more likely to lose a goal tonight than we did on Saturday, but anything less than 3 points would have been a travesty. Jack and Robson were excellent in midfield, and McLean and Church worked their airses off (McLean missing a couple of decent chances). Pawlett had a good first half and was playing well, but unfortunately came off injured (some sort of arm injury, was weird, he did it before half time but played ten minutes in the second before being taken off - it was obvious he wasn't comfortable). Felt a bit sorry for Pawlett as he is on his last chance with the dons I reckon and was unfortunate with his injury. He played significantly better than McGinn too, who was pish. Fannied out of numerous challenges and held onto the ball too long on more than one occasion - our worst performer. Shinnie great as usual, Considine solid, Brown a couple of decent saves (despite being rooted to his line the whole game) and Flood did well when he came on. To the ref. Pips Collum for worst decision of the season. Fucking terrible for the second disallowed goal. Shinnie nailed in the box, and everyone assumed he was giving a penalty even though we'd gone on to score (which might have been acceptable). He didn't though, he booked Shinnie for what appears to be diving and gave a free kick to Utd. I don't even think that's a rule. Surely if a player dives - which he absolutely fucking didn't - you wait until the ball goes out of play (in this case for the goal) and then book the player? He just seemed to steam in with a reaction, brandishing his card about, it really was fucking absurd. Thank fuck it didn't cost us like that useless cunt did at the weekend. It'll be worth everyone having a look at in the highlights. I can't see where his decision comes from at all; certainly not the rule book. Utd? Pish. But not pish enough to go down, they've got a better team than Killie and probably Accies. Thon Pongolle got ditched at half time, he is utter horse. It was hilarious. Their keeper couldn't kick the ball. At all. He had to throw everything and get another player to take goal kicks. I assume he was injured, because it couldn't possibly be a permanent problem. It was crazy, really didn't inspire confidence in their defence. They couldn't pass it back to him because he couldn't kick it - I mean 10 times worse than Leighton.

I'm going down. Been a while since I've been to Tannadice, so looking forward to it. Started snowing in town, so expect it to be f'n freezing. Don't have time for a drink between leaving work and getting there, so nothing to take the edge off the conditions and performance. I was happy with Church's performance on Saturday, so I think we'll win. 2 - 0. ------------------Brown------------------- Logan---Considine---Reynolds---Shinnie -------------Jack-------Flood------------- ----McGinn------McLean-----Pawlett---- -----------------Church------------------ Church and Considine with the goals.

We had 11 corners to their 0 and 57% possession (from the dons website). Given we were probably lucky to be 1-0 up at half time (i.e. they had as much, if not more, of the game) I suspect that possession stat was heavily influenced by our second half performance. We completely dominated possession in the second half, and territorially too; they barely made it into our half but for a few punts out of defence. I've seen us play out a lot of games this season with a one goal lead where we sat back and let teams come at us. Saturday's game was the complete opposite. At 1-0, you can expect a team to go kamikaze style all out for a second goal. You have to show discipline, keep possession and play the game in the opponents half. That's exactly what we did, as the stats show. It was like the Motherwell game a couple of season back (same ref, coincidentally). Only one team was attempting to score, and had any ideas on the pitch. There was no plan B from St Johnstone, they just exceptionally lucky. 99 times out of 100 that game would have finished 1-0.

I totally disagree with you there Hebrew, I thought we absolutely dominated the second half and were the only team that looked like scoring. We were pressing and had all the possession, and it didn't like Saints were going to get a goal if we played for another 2 hours - certainly a vast improvement on the first half. I thought was lazy analysis from Willie Miller after the game, resorting to the cliche "you've got to score a second" pish. That we didn't score a second wasn't through lack of effort or attempts. We took the game to St Johnstone, played the game in their half and were in their box on numerous occasions when either the wrong pass was made or Saints had 6 players in the box and made the block. We won several corners and had a couple of decent opportunities too. At no point did we sit back and let Saints come at us (bar a five minute spell halfway through 2nd). At no point were we seeing the game out, we controlled it. I've seen us play numerous games this season where we've let teams come at us when only 1-0 up, this certainly wasn't one of them. Had Jack not put in that challenge, Craig was going nowhere (I didn't think it was a pen) with cover available and little support - consistent with the rest of Saint's performance in the game. In summary, our inability to score had nothing to do with the way we approached the second half, it was to do with good defending, lack of creativity and a bit of bad luck. Also, thought Church led the line really well for us. I didn't think he was great in previous games, but he certainly didn't let himself down on Saturday. Pawlett seems to be permanently one touch away from doing something brilliant. If he could just have lifted the ball past a player or two when running at pace he'd have been away. It seems like he just tries to hit it through players rather than round them. Must be difficult when you're running full pelt, but I think he just needs to bring a little bit more trickery to his game and we'd have a very good player.

All those players would be very well paid these days. I can imagine Nicholas, for example, expecting a huge salary in today's climate. A player on the fringes at Arsenal could join a Championship side or lower EPL side for upwards of £20K per week. So, basically, money is the answer rather than ambition or declining standards. I actually think the SPL has improved over the last 3-4 years as teams have moved out of debt. Hopefully we'll sort out the u20s/reserves situation so that we can have more youngsters making the step up quicker as I do think there's an unnecessary gulf in standard between the two, which is maybe preventing the type of youth who'll burst on the seen for any team. Pretty much every young player coming into an SPL team looks very lightweight (see Wright at the weekend). But, other than youth, we're never going to make a big signing again. The type of player that'll perhaps get a few more through the gate doesn't exist for us. We have to rely on players turning out to be good once we sign them - like McGinn for instance. Over the last ten years our most exciting signing - in my opinion - was Anderson returning. Although I also think that both Shinnie and McLean were both ambitious signings given their ability - both were clearly very good players, akin to the Severin signing, which was another unexpected one. It's all relative I suppose. Rooney, for example, is our Nicholas equivalent these days. Ryan Fraser is probably our poor-man's Jess. I quite enjoy being in that bracket, where we've got slightly more than other SPL clubs, but not on a ridiculous scale (like between us and the Tims). That we don't pay the UK average salary per week to some similarly unheard of fucker is also quite reassuring. I think Scottish football has found its level, and should be quite comfortable with it. They should market it better, and there are still massive problems with the running of the game, but the teams seem to have adopted a pretty good strategy on the whole.

Nope, the Guardian merely presented the data in a consistent graphed format. The actual report presents the data in graph format too (see link, final pages). It, however, uses a ridiculous mash up of different graph styles, often in 3D, which makes even more of a mockery of the data (some fuckwit given carte blanche in excel - no wonder the report took so long). I don't know what's worse, the findings or the presentation... http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/jimmy_savile_investigation.pdf

Thinking about it, McInnes will take him back in midfield, move Shinnie to right back and bring in Considine at left back. Think I would play Jack at right back personally, might give him a psychological kick up the airse to show that he has to take one for the team, as well as avoid fucking about with the personnel too much.

Fuck me, they've got fucking graphs. Fuck sake. Is this so a CEO can have an "at a glance" paedophelia dashboard? How fucking crass, who thought this was an acceptable way to present the findings? http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/25/serious-failings-bbc-jimmy-savile-abuse-72-woman-children-report Victims by program? Jesus.

Good use of capitals. It really is everything. It's like there are two separate realities; one manufactured. There are so many examples too, it's staggering: Monetary policy: We own Sterling, our national debt is not actually a debt (other than foreign currency debt), it's an arbitrary balance between the treasury and the publicly owned BOE. Why is not the base point for discussion in all economic reporting/debating? Why is not even mentioned in economic textbooks (my wife has an economics degree, I've read the majority of her textbooks, monetary policy - or, where does money come from - played no part)? Austerity: If you have £1,000 (sterling) in circulation and £500 is public debt (teasury to the BOE) and £500 is private debt, then reduction in public debt (austerity) means a greater private debt. Why is this not discussed? Bank debt vs personal debt: When a person puts there money in a bank, the bank then owns that cash and is replaced with an IOU from the bank to the person. When a person goes into a bank for a loan, the bank simply writes an IOU from the person to the bank and accounts for that IOU as an asset on their balance sheet. There is no connection between depositor and lender. Why do the vast majority of people assume that their savings are used by banks as funds to loan to other people? Why is economics taught this way at University? Why is not in the media everyday as the basis for any economic discussion? And that's just on monetary and economic policy; where a whole separate system is presented as truth that bears no resemblance to actual truth, by every single news outlet. It doesn't even get into QE, or the level of non-productive investment or the requirement for banks to even exist in a progressive modern society - something that even banks are recognising. The connection between food production, advertising and health is literally ignored. The fact that UN reports indicate that we have about 60 harvests left of topsoil. That capitalism/profit isn't compatible with food production or sale - the two directly conflict. Automation, virtually ignored, other than for the purpose of scaremongering. The notion that a person will soon be able to own a technology that requires no human input to provide its output, meaning that ownership (i.e. whoever can afford it at the time) of a copyright (idea) will soon be able to be enough to provide a person with a lifetime return by doing nothing and providing no employment (I realise we're already there in some cases). The stock answer to automation is: we'll think of new jobs for everyone, we always have done (I could be assistant PR supervisor for Apple Aberdeen's automated transport division), regardless of how fucking stupid and not-required said jobs are. Why is there no discussion on the best way for humans to harness automation for the benefit of all at the lowest possible cost? And then there are the paedos, the lobbyists, the psychopaths etc. Not even discussed. Health, and the ownership of drugs. Not even discussed. Sport, and the fact that it no longer exists: money = win. Not discussed. I generally turn on the Radio (Scotland, or whatever), listen to the news and pretty much every story has a huge gap in the discussion - like an agreed set of boundaries. Channel 4 news is pretty good, but still seems to be unwilling to challenge the current system (other than Paul Mason in economics, and Alex Thomson in hun-based news). But as you say Rocket, karma will see to the cunts in the end. Probably the rest of us too (cunts like me, who partake in the system for instance) mind you.