RicoS321

Couple of things. First, Rocket, your stats have Quinn not playing against the Tim. I thought he started? He certainly played - given he scored - and I was sure we'd started with the back 5 of Logan, Taylor, Quinn Considine, Hayes? Anyway, that aside, I think the stats show that in general the back four have been not mucked about too much other than in the Hibs game, where bad substitutions after injury were an issue. I have noticed however that we change our midfield nearly every week, and during games, which does seem to be causing problems. We had absolutely zero cover for our defence against St Johnstone and for large parts of the Motherwell game. I think that inconsistency is really affecting us, and Jack in particular. Whilst his own game has gone to shite, it's not being helped by the lack of a good defensive partner. In the last few games he's tried Flood, Shinnie, McLean and Hayes, and that lack of a permanent option seems to be pretty detrimental. I think McInnes needs to choose his preferred option and stick with it for a few weeks. Jack, in my opinion, is too weak to be captain and even too weak to organise his fellow midfielders. He needs to stick to the game he is very good at. Ball retention and breaking down attacks by slowing them down as a result of being in the right place. In order to do that, there needs to be few surprises as to where your team mates are going to be. I predict McInnes will turn it around, and we'll win all our games in November....

Do you have a badge under your poppy stating this?

Is Taylor injured? Always a threat at corners, so I'd have him in if available as I thought Quinn made a couple of errors against County and Motherwell when he came on. Think Reynolds did enough to keep his place. Whilst Flood is okay in this type of game, I think Shinnie was outstanding there in the home fixture, so I'd go Shinnie. I'd hook McLean for his poor performance against Well, even though he was playing deeper than should be allowed, and keep Pawlett in as I thought his movement was excellent despite his poor finishing. ---------------Ward------------------- Logan---Taylor----Reynolds----Consi ---------Jack-----Shinnie------------- --Hayes-------Pawlett-------McGinn-- -------Roooooooooooooney---------- I'd stick with that for a good 60 minutes, nae switching McGinn and Hayes back and forth, they're both significantly better when they hit the byline, and we're far more dangerous as a result.

Hopefully it'll have the same effect as last time.

Played there for ICT last season. And played well unsurprisingly. I'd rather see him there and Considine at left back, than McLauchlan, if Logan got injured.

Aye, pretty horrendous like. Shame.

Not strictly banking practice, but David Graeber covers monetary policy in the guardian today. Worth a quick read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/2008-crash-government-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus

If it was the same rumour, then it was Ash Taylor's missus and it was started by some chunt on twitter. Given that Taylor dealt with it on twitter in a reasonably jovial manner would suggest that it was fuck all about nothing,so the players are probably not concerned either way. To me, it just looks like a severe dip in confidence, which has been made worse by inconsistent team (formation) selection and poor use of subs. It seems that, in an attempt to make us unpredictable, McInnes has actually made us less potent, disorganised and pedestrian. I thought at times at the weekend we started looking like an organised team again, and it showed in the creation of several good chances. The glaring issue for us seems to be the second holding midfielder alongside Jack. Unfortunately - because I think he's an ace left back - Shinnie is the only option in there just now with Flood good enough to provide cover against Partick and such like. MacLean and Pawlett are clearly either/or players not both on the pitch at the same time. The problem is that it had to be a flawless season from us to win the title (and a huge slice of luck), and we've let that slip. We needed guys like McLaughlin and Parker to be hidden gems. I think it was clear in the way that both were signed that that was never going to be the case, and the punt on them hasn't paid off. If we can keep the gap to Celtic small between now and January, hopefully we'll make space for another striker or winger and a centre mid. The difference between us and the Tims, or McInnes and Delia to be more precise, is that one has scope for error and the other doesn't. McInnes isn't good enough to have a perfect season, but I doubt many mangers exist that are.

It certainly shows that we could do a bit better on the TV deal, but the main issue in our league is the wealth distribution, and everyone knows it. The dons' 50% higher wage bill is no real surprise (with the HIV duo being in the championship the main driver I would think). The dons fully bought into taking up the hun position in the league of being better than the rest whilst retaining the 11-1 voting system. The percentage of the money that comes into the game that goes directly to one club is the biggest problem in our game, which the stats only slightly touch on, and is completely protected by our voting system. The 5x multiplier on wages from 1st to 2nd or 7.5x to 3rd shows that the sport in this country isn't actually a sport. Anything that Doncaster does over and above this reality is irrelevant. Does anyone really give a fuck if we get £5M extra from our TV deal, if that money is only re-distributed in the same fashion? I think Scottish fitba has got its wages and investment at about the right level in society, with players getting paid a premium on yer average punter's salary, but not some obscene EPL fantasy wage. For me it all comes down to whether we want to improve the league as a whole, or remain as single entities chasing individual exponential growth and decreased competition. Scottish fitba (not just Scottish fitba, obviously) is a perfect mirror of crony capitalism in society but in the guise of a sport. It's a bit fucked up really.

Tory policy is: it makes little difference to me and my rich friends. I find all this politics business a jolly great riot, but lets not take it too seriously eh? It's not like our lives depend on it. Straight from their manifesto.

So is that a Yes or a No? I reckon it's the syllabus that's the issue. I was bored as fuck at school, and made sure the teacher knew about it. The authoritarian balls was a bit shit ina. They should treat kids like adults a lot earlier and get them involved in the subject(s) that they want to take further. I don't see the point in forcing a child to do something they hate to fulfil some pre-conceived idea of knowledge a child should know. Teachers are always fighting a losing battle in that respect. Furthermore, I think it puts kids off learning and continuing to learn once school is over. It took me ages to pick up a book after I left school due to the turgid shite I was forced to read in secondary school (having been an avid reader in primary). It turned out it wasn't turgid shite, but just stuff I was too young/immature to appreciate, but forcing me to read it just exacerbated the issue tenfold. Most people I know stopped learning when they left school other than an occasional regurgitation exercise of a business degree or some such shite because they hadn't learned anything worthwhile at school that set them up with an obvious career choice. It doesn't surprise me that so many people leave school with little idea what they want to do with their life - the places are imagination vacuums. At least 50% of the teachers I encountered clearly had no interest in what they were doing and did anything they could for an easy life. It rubs off too. But I realise that's a pretty general statement based on my school days, which was a wee while ago now.

Fit was the conclusion then? Are teachers wankers or not? If I we're to criticise Rocket for anything in this thread, it has to be for not including a poll as part of it. I'd have thought that in your line of work the results of a poll would have been interesting.

Fit are everyone's thoughts on the EU referendum then? In or oot? I'm swaying toward out at the moment. Not in an immigration/Faragey type way though. I just think it's a shambles. A TTIP loving shambles, which has forgotten - or never had - many of the progressive leanings that it is lauded for. I don't believe we (Europe, as a whole) need it for trade, or human rights and I think it's grown to the stage where it's too big to change and move forward. The ECB is basically a political wing of the German government, and the politicians are owned by corporations - it's a scaled up version of Westminster in my opinion.

He's a janitor.

I heard a rumour that he was manager of the month for September.

There's no way the Yes campaign could have out-lied a Westminster and Murdoch/Rothemere etc backed lie campaign. Nor did they need to. PR alone was good enough to vote Yes for if we'd had our own currency. That would have put us on a level starting point with every other sovereign country in the world, but with a fair voting system. An instant step up from being part of the FPTP UK.

I can see why people voted No. I didn't, and was never going to, but the SNP "vision" was just a Scottish version of the status quo. It was truly fuckin dire. They avoided the currency issue like the plague, because the most obvious and best solution for Scotland - creating its own currency - was unpalatable for most economy-spakkers. The complete and utter lack of vision in the white paper was staggering, and the failure to mention issues such as resource use, the environment, work-automation - i.e. the massive head-in-the-sand topics for our UK government meant we were essentially voting for PR in order that we could get a better option after independence. I suspect many people saw a Scottish establishment replacing a UK one, and they could be forgiven for thinking that. So for many, the changes presented weren't worth the risk where the debt-fuelled status quo for most people is being a job-loss away from losing your house, marriage, car etc. The SNP - because it was all about the SNP - didn't nearly do enough to reassure people that there'd be a safety net, that the right of the person would trump those of the corporation and that the state would provide the fall-back if things didn't go swimmingly. When you're selling something as big as the SNP were, it's not good enough to say that we're capable of running things, so don't worry. You need to give people the scenario if things don't go well for them too. The SNP still haven't provided that, nor have they produced a credible currency option. They're relying on things getting so bad under Westminster - either through a financial crash or a Euro exit - that they'll get a back-door referendum 2. At which point they'll dust down The White Paper and sell us the same stunted vision. Voting Yes required/requires a hell of a lot of trust, assumption and vision that many people weren't/aren't willing to give or can visualise. I would suggest a lot of people voted No through scepticism rather than stupidity.

I can't wait to spit at him as he walks past me in the mainer again.

You can't say cunt on Aberdeen Mad. Anyway, here's the link to the only thread I've ever mentioned you in on Aberdeen Mad for those interested. No mention of cunts from me. http://boards.footymad.net/aberdeen-mad/2109884551?pg=2#dkQG5oIiZV4zS9AI.97 But my analogy did need work like.

It's the murder equivalent of East Stirling beating Kilmarnock. You don't support East Stirling as such, but like to back the underdog. Especially when they're up against an odious puppet side, led by an utter fucking cunt. But then they've got some nice people; Josh Magennis. For that reason you don't completely hate them, because most of them just want to get on with their lives and have no association with the atrocities being carried out in their name - like deliberately bombing a hospital, or abstaining on the vote on whether or not to allow sevco into the premier league.

Barraclough dunted. Nae surprise. Fantastic demolition of the huns aside, he's been fairly pap. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34339870

Yep. I think it's a little bit Timmish. We need to win everything we play in. We need guys like Cammy Smith, Robson etc to be match ready when the time comes. We've got a big enough of squad of decent players now that we should not be concentrating solely on league performances.

Germany gets a lot of credit for its stance, and it's certainly doing a lot. However, its stranglehold on the Euro makes it a lot easier for Germany than it is for Greece or Italy for example. The attempted forcing of Euro countries to "balance their books" (not run a deficit) means that those countries are making an either/or choice regarding helping refugees - where the either/or is between helping refugees or helping its own citizens struggling under the weight of ridiculous austerity and debt conditions. Similarly in the UK. The refugee situation is presented as an either/or situation. The suggestion in the media, and parroted by many you see being interviewed in the streets, is that at a time of food banks, unemployment, so-called housing shortages and benefit cuts we "can't afford to take in any more people". The basic challenge to this mantra doesn't seem to exist, anywhere, despite the fact it has absolutely no truth in it whatsoever. Unlike our Euro counterparts, we are a sovereign country with a sovereign currency (take note SNP, get a f'n proper alternative on currency for the next indyref, ye useless fucks). We have an ageing population, a crumbling and inefficient housing stock and a terrible public transport system outside of London. England alone has over 200,000 permanently unoccupied homes (600,000 total). Austerity is an ideology. A choice. The suggestion that in some way we don't have the resources, the room, the money, the employment to welcome refugees is simply a lie. We (our government) are choosing not to - nothing more. Should there be a limit? Possibly, but it should be based on our ability to process them in a safe and respectful manner, ensuring that they are provided for and not some arbitrary figure made up by government because they think it's the least they can offer to appease both sides of a biased argument.

I suspect he was probably asked the question, "do you think you should be sacked if you fail to win the league" and he's agreed. He's probably not thought about it in any great detail. It's more a case of bad journalism again I reckon. Yiv hit the nail on the heed with yer "doesn't fit" comment, there's something nae right about him that I canna pit my finger on. I suspect the Tim fans see it that way too.

Class. They'd have been better sending letters to those without hygiene issues.