RicoS321

Obviously you can't back up "loss of jobs" other than by predicting what you would do if you were in a UK company's shoes that has no physical reason to be in the UK (banking v O&G for example). There's no science behind it, just forecast. If it were me, I'd move my company to the EU (my company relies on UK business, so not possible), for obvious logical reasons. Any employees of mine would be, thus, canned. It's basic business sense if your market is the EU or the US or China and if you're responsible to shareholders then you'd have to have a damned good reason for not moving. The thing about no deal is that it isn't just: 1st November - done. There will be a deal, because that is how trade is done globally these days whether you or I like it (I don't) or need it (I don't). Until the point a deal is done, an existing business has to jump through additional hoops under WTO that didn't exist previously. The charlatan will then have to negotiate his fantastic new deal with 27 new countries, which will take him a fucking age because he's an inept charlatan cunt and so are his surrounding Tory cunts. Sure as fuck I wouldn't be hanging around as a company for the shitfest of a deal that the EU let him have at the end of it. Given the fact that WTO rules require a border with another "trading bloc" (nae really what the EU is, but it deals as such) then it's likely that only a temporary waiver will be given before Ireland is split in two, with the knock on effect that the US will tell us to go and fuck ourselves for ruining the good Friday agreement (easier to blame us than the EU). Either way, a deal with the US isn't an overnight thing. WTO shouldn't be an issue there for normal business cunts like you or me, but some of the big companies I work for will happily walk [from the UK] if the EU gets a trade deal with Canada, the US or China whilst still being on WTO with the others as its just good business sense. So very, very likely that there will be job losses and very likely that they will be significant. Good opportunities too, of course, just not likely as significant in the 5 -10 year time. In my opinion, job-losses shouldn't be a reason not to pursue Brexit. You can choose to look after your unemployed or not, it's rare that you get the opportunity to re-define your political make-up (I don't believe that is what existing Brexit does).

Maybe you just got in his way while he was watching and he over-reacted. Perhaps you need to consider that sometimes in the heat of the moment some people get overly annoyed about silly litte things. Also, you say that Dons fans are "generally fucking pricks", but I'm guessing that the "fat mong" was not the only person that you walked past on the way to your seat? Inotherwords, he wasn't particularly representative of Aberdeen fans, but more representative of "fat mongs". Whilst Rocket's approach is a good one if this guy was your equal, but if he's a fat racist mong, then why drag yourself down to his level and not just leave him to it? Or, apologise, smile and say "you're entirely correct sir, it won't happen again". You'll have appeased the stupid guy, plus you won't have to come on here of a Tuesday to tell us about it, because it won't be praying on your mind like it seems to be still. You've let the "fat mong" get to you, you see, which should never happen in life. Just laugh him off.

To be fair to Sturgeon, she really has to let this Brexit mess play itself out and she has to be seen to be against a no deal, even though that would be the quickest way to independence. The problem that both Corbyn and Sturgeon have is that the date keeps getting kicked down the road. The longer the impasse on Brexit, the more the [remain] electorate get pissed off with Sturgeon and Corbyn for not doing anything - despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing they can do outwith power and anything they do actually do will be used against them. They're both sitting waiting for the Tories to fuck it all up, but the longer you do that, the more people think that you are dithering. It doesn't help that we've had three years of minute-by-minute coverage.

It'd be even funnier if it turned out he hasn't actually signed.

It was the telegraph I think, but no, his record as a politician and as mayor (and probably his entire life). Aye, that's about it.

BJ is a demonstrable liar and charlatan. He should not be trusted based on his previous record. If someone told him tomorrow that revoking article 50 would gaurantee him an election victory, he'd do it. He is principleless. I agree with you about Davidson, and I'd argue that Johnson and Trump are the perfect extrapolation of that politician that we've been heading towards for years. They don't bother with truth or consistency, they don't bother even attempting to hide the fact that they are liars. They don't even bother to bluster around the awkward questions, because they know that it doesn't matter. It's impressive. I think you could be right. I don't see a landslide for Boris as there are enough people that hate him, but the biggest minority and easily able to form a majority.

What does that (bold) even mean? Boris projects a bumbling idiot. Is that statesmanlike? Does it still matter? It's certainly interesting gamesmanship. It's difficult to tell whether people will think he's acting decisively or if he's hiding from parliament like he (correctly) hid from the interviews in the leadership contest. I suspect whatever the Sun and the Mail class it as will be the line most people take. I can see a general election being the outcome. Whether it will be pre 31/10 will be the only key element.

He's an excellent player and professional. I'd have him an a heart beat. Simply because he's better than most of our other wide players.

It's frustrating, as the best time to bring through guys like Anderson was a few years back (he was too young, obviously). We had a good, solid squad at the time and had the space, quality and usually the big enough lead to get our youth players playing large parts of games without too much deficit in the wider team. Now, Anderson would be coming in to an unsettled squad and first time, be being moved about across the front positions and have very little leadership behind him to steer him through games. It's nae exactly a good environment for a youngster. I think Anderson in the squad would be best for the team as I think we'll find out that Main is pap and Anderson will offer slightly more. However, I think he'll get ground down by the ten minute appearances and being asked to play out wide and forget his role as finisher. I think what is best for Anderson is that he avoids that conundrum by going out on loan. The question is whether we want to look after our team or our young player? I think the long term benefits would be greater giving him a year elsewhere.

I think that if we had just waited before snapping up Main, then we could have happily kept May plugging away for a month and then given Anderson an opportunity. I think Anderson is still very raw, but he's just as good an option as Main. If he can get a good loan at a high end championship club then that might be better for his development than sitting on our bench.

Ahh, Ferrytoll, that's the one I had heard about a while back. I think that's good for driving down on the day rather than the night before - as I don't think there's anywhere nearby/walking distance to stay - and it seems to open at 6am, which will be too late for my flight if I was driving down on the day but it's definitely one for future though. Cheers.

I got your point, I think. I disagree about McLean, his entire final season was excellent and he had a couple of 6 months spells where he was good in prior seasons (from when he displaced Maddison and the start of the previous Rijeka season). Anyway, semantics on that one. What I was saying is that a lot of players are not bought to be the marquee signing, they are bought to be good first teamers or squad players to allow us to finish third. I actually think we've done reasonably well in the last couple of seasons in terms of getting points on the board with a very average squad. I actually think that our squad was similar to that of Hibs last season (and definitely the one before). We were probably about two players ahead of them in terms of player budget, but our awful recruitment mostly nullified that gap (as can happen when you have teams so close to one another in budget, which is what makes a league without the scum quite appealing). I'd argue that guys like Taylor, Flood, Ball, O'Connor etc exceded expectations in their one way, because we expected significantly worse but they turned out to be regulars who helped us finish 2nd or 3rd.

Cheers min, will check them out. Someone else mentioned Holiday Inn Express for their park, stay and fly option which might do the business too.

It's obvious though isn't it? It's to accomodate. In my mind, Wilson doesn't play because Cosgrove is much better. If Cosgrove goes to Man City, gets injured, has a dip in form or needs rested then Wilson comes in. When Cosgrove tires and we're two goals up, then Wilson comes on. That means Wilson spending a lot of time on the bench, so McInnes decides to try him out elsewhere - I wouldn't. It's not specific to McInnes either, all managers trying to balance squads do it. Heckingbottom was getting hassled for playing Allan out wide this season. McInnes wants to appease guys like Bryson and Ferguson by playing them every week, which means the no 10 role isn't freed up for Wilson, or Hedges, or Wright, or McGinn. It's all a bit of a juggle really. The difference between us and the Tims - for example - is that their players can do a job in the SPL in multiple positions. McGinn can play across the front 3 and I suspect Hedges can too, but the others struggle to and McInnes expect it of him. I mentioned last season that Steve Clarke was very good at getting players to play a single role very well and that's how he managed to get Killie to where they were. McInnes doesn't do that. He expects his foward players to be able to play across the positions and regularly changes them throughout games (I don't believe that Wilson didn't play through the middle at times against Killie, but I didn't see it). To me, it's hugely detrimental as players like Wright struggle with that chopping and changing. In my opinion, you need to get a player playing well in one role by giving them an extended run there before attempting to switch them back and forth. Get them confident in the league they're playing first. Wilson is obviously an exception to that as he was given a run at centre forward for 9 consecutive games last season and he was pish - which is why I don't think we should have signed him again. Wright, McLennan, Stewart etc are/weren't given that without moving them about throughout games.

Same question but for Edinburgh airport? Early flight means I need to stay overnight in Edinburgh, but will not be heading out in the city or anything as I'll arrive quite late on the Thursday, so literally a place for a few hours, but leave the car for a few days. Any suggestion appreciated!

Quite a few over the years. Robson, Rooney, McLean, Logan, Lewis, Cosgrove, Lowe, Maddison, Christie, Shinnie off the top of my head. I think it misses the point slightly though. It's a bit like youth development in many ways. You only really need one or two of your signings to excel in any given season. The rest you just need to form a part of the first 11 or, at worst, good squad material (O'Connor, Ball, May etc). As long as you can keep your core first team at an above average level, then supplement with one or two good signings to replace those that leave and hope to promote one good youth team player and one above average youth team player every year. If you can keep that in/outflow relatively stable then you're fine. Over the last three years, McInnes has made key mistakes in signing May, Gleeson, Forrester and - in my opinion (so far) - Wilson this season (I'll keep my powder dry on the rest of the signings, but at the moment I'm thinking Hedges will be the only one worth holding onto and maybe Ojo). Currently, we're having to make up our first team with guys that we can only hope will be good enough as our outflows have been far greater than our inflows as we (McInnes) let things slide for two years running. That should have been made up with by making more signings later in the window. Instead, we made those signings early in the window, locking ourselves into the hope that Gallagher, Ojo, Bryson, Hedges and Leigh will be good enough. In my opinion, what McInnes thought was a cautious and safe strategy of signing Main, Wilson and Taylor nice and early to ensure our squad remained no less than average, will actually turn out to bite him on the airse as he doesn't have the budget to get himself out of a hole.

Aye, with emphasis on the last few seasons like. He's basically been playing catch up for two years on his own poor signings since May-day. He might actually hit his targets for signings this season (50% return - I'm guessing), however when you still have May and Gleeson on the books and with little sign of any new youth development, it makes it very hard to get a competent squad resilient to injury. With that in mind, he clearly made some "safe" purchases in Taylor, Main and Wilson. It's here that I have the issue. These signings should have been made now when we'd seen how good our main (not Main) signings got on. Had we seen the current crop, I think we'd have been looking for a better striker than Main and Wilson with Anderson as backup if needed. Similarly, defensively, we'd probably be looking for a better centre half than Taylor with Devlin missing again. McInnes has taken the cautious approach of getting numbers in and, now we have numbers, we realise they're shite.

I don't think we need another centre half. If we've got Considine, McKenna, Vyner, Devlin and Taylor that should cover it. If the midfielder is an attacking midfielder, then I agree we need to get someone in that role. Failing that, a better wide player. However, I think we're short on quality more generally again. Lowe is a huge loss, we've got nobody being the captain in the centre of midfield and May, Main, Wilson, Wright and possibly McLennan aren't good enough to regularly produce anything of note in the forward areas. Unsure about Gallagher and Bryson so far. We need a player in the forward areas that is really going to be a first name on the teamsheet (like Cosgrove is at the minute). The ones above are all just filler really.

It's okay (only been in at lunch). Yorokobi just down the road is better if you're not needing a quick fix. Also, I've heard that the sushi place on Union Grove is good, but not been yet.

That's interesting. I was told a couple of weeks ago that it had closed down. That's good that it hasn't. It's a strange one, as I always forget that it exists for some reason. Must be its location. It's always been decent.

No he hasn't. Unless that was specificied in his investment agreement. Which would be weird. It sounds like we're honouring our future chairman. Which is weird. I doubt that the club hadn't considered naming rights though. The fans are getting to name the pitches though. I think we should call one "Pittodrie, 6 miles East."

^^^^This.

I actually thought they showed up more after McLean left, but I know what you mean about Jack being there. I'd argue that had a lot to do with Shinnie having to do the work of two players after Jack left because we didn't adequately replace him. Shinnie's role didn't change, he wasn't really asked to dictate, that was supposed to be McLean's role and it took a long time for him to get into that. When we had Flood and Jack, you could tell that Jack hated it as Flood was so unpredictable and would make the wrong move at the wrong time. That clearly wasn't the case with Jack and Shinnie, where Shinnie's game was easy to read and Jack knew when and when not to cover - they worked very well together. Jack is a better footballer than Shinnie though. Shinnie a significantly better captain. You're not really making your point very well. I'll say it again: I am not suggesting Shinnie is an amazing footballer, I'm saying he was very good in the SPL and one of the best in the league. That is borne out by him getting - deservedly - into the Scotland. Of course that is a small pool of players. I'm really only arguing that he is one of the best of about 25 Scottish based central midfielders. You're even using the case of when he was awful at left back for Scotland as an argument against him being one of the best midfielders. Is McGregor at the Tim now shite because he was guff at left back the other night? I have no problem with most of yer argument but when you say this: Then you just sound stupid. I might be wrong, but given the above evidence I've provided: his Scotland call ups, his move to a better club etc. it's clearly not the clear cut issue you're suggesting.

This can go here probably. Interesting enough read. https://aeon.co/ideas/if-work-dominated-your-every-moment-would-life-be-worth-living