RicoS321

That was the most horrendous ending to a game of fitba ever. Scotland obviously fucked it like, but 6 minutes to VAR an obvious fucking penalty, then to bring it back when the keeper makes a save because they were half a yard over the line and finally play 4 minutes of stoppage time, ignoring the entire time taken for VAR. It was stupidly bad. I'd have chinned the ref had I been on that pitch. I'd be asking for a replay it was that bad. A terrible advert for the bird's game, caused by fucking about with the rules. Shove VAR up yer hoop, it's fucking awful (offsides excepted of course, as they can be calculated by a computer). I've never seen a keeper save a penalty when on their line, nor attempt to. If someone can find a clip of a keeper anywhere in the world, ever, saving a pen without going beyond their line I'll give them a virtual pint. It's fucking ludicrous. Thank fuck they're dicking about with this in the birds game.

Used to be good. Assume he still is. Good work dons. Let's get Gleeson out the door now.

I actually think that the Luxembourg outfit will be margarinally better.

Ethan Ross looks like a player. I'm not convinced by McLennan or Frank Ross. I don't think either will make it anywhere near the level of GMS on his day. McLennan is a good squad player, but until he learns the art of not falling over the ball he'll get nowhere. I disagree about McGinn, he had a couple of games where he showed flashes of his previous self (that goal against Motherwell) and I think he still has the ability to do something that no other player in our squad can. He's young enough that fitness shouldn't be an issue and he's never really been lightening quick so his dropping of a shoulder will be enough to get him past a lot of defenders still.

It's an interesting article. The difficulty I have with it is that the author comes to his conclusions without real historical context or linkage. For example, suggesting FDR foresaw USD becoming the world reserve currency isn't really backed up by anything he's written. He's basically applying a backward prescience to FDR in reaction to what actually happened rather than what FDR understood or targetted, for which there doesn't appear to be any evidence. It basically removes any incremental positions and opportunity that arose as events occurred (i.e. FDR reacted to events), which seems unlikely. The holocaust industry is an excellent book, but it doesn't seek to argue that there was no holocaust which is essentially the argument put forward by the article. Focusing on the loose usage of the term holocaust seems a little flippant given the volume of slaughtered jews as recognised within the article. The notion that it matters whether the jews were slaughtered post-labour or pre-labour in the camps is neither here nor there. It's interesting that he takes the "bottom-line/working back" approach when discussing FDR (USD became world currency, therefore that was FDR's aim) but works the opposite way when discussing the far bigger crime of the holocaust (consistency would suggest that he'd work back from the fact that X million jews were killed, ergo the holocaust was planned). His argument, it seems, is that the jews were a victim of circumstance after being taken to the work camps. It's a basically like saying that the rhetoric surrounding Dave Cameron's "hard-working" British people had no influence on the British public assuming that there were huge volumes of people scamming the unemployment benefits system and that it was a massive problem. Cameron never actually stated that anymore than 1.5% of benefits claims were fraudulent, he just implied it by dropping the term hard-working in to every single speech he did (by implication, those that were unemployed were lazy scum scrounging from the rest). In other words, Hitler didn't need to construct a plan of action for the holocaust, it was implicit in every single thing he said about jews, and implicit in everything he didn't do to prevent them being slaughtered (whether before or after providing their labour). He's taken a very nuanced view of the books he talks of that I don't think represent the views of the authors. He acknowledges this at the start of the article but then fails entirely to provide the relevant citation of each conclusion he draws so that the reader can index it back to the source (something David Irving or Norman Finkelstein would never do). In this regard, it's slightly disingenuous. The "you can check the details for yourself if you want" to article writing isn't good journalism for a guy who professes to want good journalism. I only started David Irving's book a few years back before getting bored so I might re-read it (probably not, getting lazy these days), so I've definitely taken something from the article!

It's already happened. Barclays gave England women's fitba £10M for example. EPL teams are giving money to their female counterparts and so on. They are all looking for "first-mover" advantage as nearly always happens in sponsorship deals. Someone takes a punt and that punt is - often - turned into real following as the investment is used to improve marketing, quality etc etc.

Agree with all this. McKenna's passing was okay. He had to aim long pretty much constantly because of lack of support, with a few of those long ones going too long as expected. He did what was required of a Scotland centre half against Belgium by keeping things simple and at the same time not giving it away in a dangerous position. There was one in the second half where he toe-poked it accross the other side of the pitch in a panic, but otherwise he did well. His partner, Mulgrew, is obviously a much better footballer (with the ball) but he has the downside of switching off at least 3 times in important situations throughout a game so it's swings and roundabouts. The "international class" thing is probably a little out-dated. I suppose what is pertinent these days is if he could play EPL, and I think last night showed that he isn't quite there yet but wouldn't look out of place in the high end championship. He's still young enough that he'll gain a bit more confidence on the ball in future years as his passing isn't shite, it's his reverting to the punt when not called upon that is the issue. Plays with his head down a little, he should learn from McLean.

That's not strictly true. I enjoyed playing pretend managers when I was 14, and I wasn't a loser. Each to their own though Tyrant, you're right of course. It's just another hobby.

But is it as a result of his policies, or the man himself? Can you separate the two and continue with one and not the other? Or would that result in the same coverage, replacing Corbyn with another person. Let's say Jess Phillips took on the Corbyn manifesto. A decent communicator, easily as good as yer best (of 10) Torys in most departments. Would she face the same thing? MacDonald would, obviously, but somebody outwith that - without the history/baggage. Again, it's bizarre that the is even a discussion to be honest. The BBC and it's fucking leader debates have a lot to answer for. At every opportunity it is their responsibility to shout down any comments about the personality and focus on the policy. I don't believe there is huge bias in their coverage, just wholescale incompetence and laziness. They allow themselves to be dictated by the stories in the press rather than take an objective look at the importance of each subject. Never allowing a discussion on a single topic to get deep enough to be understood by the average viewer. More harm than good in my opinion.

This. In fairness to him, the media - including yer left of centre media (Guardian etc) - have offered him little air time to combat anything. It was notable that his population increased at last election time when he was actually given time to discuss policy. Labour will need far more than that though if they are to win a general election. It's a strange one. I expect a lot of people would support many of Corbyn's policies (many wouldn't, of course). If you replaced Corbyn with Starmer or Thornberry (for example) then you'd lose the policies too I expect; moving central, blurring the lines between Labour and Lib Dems. It gets to the heart of what the purpose of the Labour party is. I don't think it's that nuanced any more. To me, yer Thornberrys and Watsons serve very little purpose - the political candidate equivalent of avoiding the question: "We are not the Torys" being their strongest selling point. I'm not a Labour or Corbyn supporter mind, I just find it intriguing that we/they have such a personal focus on an individual at the expense of what could be a decent set of policies that encapsulate what the Labour party was traditionally set up to represent. If I were a Labour MP and I believed in Corbyn's policies, then I'd be dragging him kicking and screaming over the line if I thought he were incompetent in the understanding that the policies and party were far more important than the leader. That doesn't seem to be happening, which suggests that either the Labour MPs are incapable of doing that or that they don't believe in the policy/manifesto. In reality, no MP should need to be led by anyone if they're even remotely competent as an individual. They should all be leaders. Rather, it seems that they may all be careerists like they're Tory counterparts. Oh well, FPTP anyway; total horseshite.

Good stuff. I think fantasy fitba is for losers, but at least it'll be losers promoting the Scottish game. Well done.

That's not political correctness. The BBC is supposed to be impartial, so giving more coverage to women these days is a nod to that impartiality. Sky will do whatever makes them money as a private company. If they can sell shit to birds at a greater rate than that lost through blokes not wanting their channels contaminated then they'll absolutely do it. Furthermore, the investment in the women's game has gone through the roof in England, and sponsors will demand - and get - their air time.

Couldn't find a thread for it. Even one for discussing how shite it is. Anyway, pleasantly surprised by the action so far in the wifie's world cup. Some decent fitba. Good technique generally speaking. Keepers improving. Slow-paced at times and I reckon they could shorten the pitch to make it better (especially these world cup pitches which are hampden sized). Otherwise, quite enjoyed it. VAR aside, which is clearly as pish in women's fitba as it is in men's.

Agree with most of that, but I thought McLean had a decent game. He seems to prefer playing that holding role. The problem I thought was that we had 3 midfielders of similar style and ability playing it very safe for 90 minutes. Never breaking from midfield into their box and the late runs were too late or not at all. Overall, it was a very cautious performance and Clarke is going to have to do much better than that if he's going to qualify for a tournament. You only get one chance, and that chance is made by winning games against the pish teams. Clarke just needs to look back at the last ten or so years of Scotland qualification to see that there is always a single game (Georgia, Lithuania, Czech Rep, Ukraine etc) where we just needed to take a risk and go for it to get 3 points that allow us the glorious failures against the big teams and still progress. It's simple stuff. If Brophy is shite for 45 minutes then fucking hook him (or give him 5-10 minutes to turn it round). If the midfield is too static and not threatining then change it. But do it in 50 minutes and give yourself a good length of time to fix it. Accept it when your starting 11 aren't doing what you wanted and deal with it. In the end, Clarke was let off the hook last night as 1-0 isn't enough to sit on in an international match (unless it's backs to the wall against a bigger team). I hope he's very quick to learn. Belgium is a free pass on Tuesday. I think Clarke is capable of setting us up not to get totally humped.

But for the same reasons though. Complete control of the club and zero transparency. I'm not a shareholder, but if I was I wouldn't vote for this. The only reason most AFC fans hold shares, I assume, is to allow them to exercise some sort of opinion and have some sort of ownership of part of the club. This dilutes that massively, making your valueless shares now worthless too. It's basically just another step towards allowing them to do what they like with our - the fans' - club. Anyway, Westhill, ken.

Nope. Doolan isn't good enough. A good finisher but slow as hell. A significantly poorer version of Rooney but in the same mould. Main is far more of a battering ram as well as capable of finishing if opportunity arises.

The Virtues. Best thing I've seen on the telly in a long time.

I couldn't give a fuck about the name. In terms of the tournament setup, I've always preferred the knock out style unless it's a league format where everyone is invited (which it couldn't be at european level obviously) such as the League Cup here and is designed to help smaller teams by giving them bigger games. I think it's okay I suppose but - like the Europa league - the tournament design results in exponential rewards for reaching a particular level (the group stage) of that tournament rather than an incremental bonus per round like the Scottish Cup for instance. Yep, exactly as I suggested, not suggesting the CL is shite in terms of quality (obviously), but examples like yours above are what is critical. It basically underpins the entire thing. I'm pretty certain you don't need explaining as to how detrimental the CL is to football in this country for instance. I just choose not to separate the fitba from the political element of it so it doesn't interest me (not to the extent I would ignore it if it was on in the pub or whatever, but I wouldn't actively seek it out to watch). I don't believe that is the purpose of sport. From a "purity of football" perspective then obviously accumulating the best players in the world and playing them will result in the best football by-in-large. I think that there is far more to sport than that. Indeed, what makes the CL special from a footballing perspective is exactly what makes it so damaging for the sport in general. In much the same way as land and property accumulation does in every day society.

The remainder of his contract (3 years?) will be worth about £200K probably. Edit: apologies, miscalculated, probably £350K

I don't think he's worth it. He's in that middle region that makes him not really suited to the English game. Not as strong as a Stockley type, not as mobile as a Magennis type and not good enough to play high end championship where his attributes (at a better level) might suit. He's not as good as likes of Steven Fletcher for example. That said, he has the potential to get there and could probably get to the level of a Steven McLean or Lee Miller in their prime. Despite the fact that he scored 20 goals this season, I don't really see him as a finisher. He doesn't ping the ball, he uses more of a swinging leg approach, which makes him that little bit slow to be a poacher. Transfermarkt has him valued at £225K, I would think that somewhere in the region of £500K with some well structured add-ons would be appropriate given length of contract. He could end up earning us close to £1M but I don't see any clubs risking that sort of straight outlay on him at the moment. He's a hard worker, and with a bit more intelligence and maturity he could easily increase his value again this season.

I don't think Main is that bad, he's probably an upgrade on May. But we now have to actually get rid of May. Otherwise you're right, we've got a shite load of squad players. I appreciate that players come available at different times and that you have to get fall-back options, but I assumed we'd be signing our main (excuse the pun) targets first and that if they turned out to be shite we could then go for the guys we've signed.

Has anyone ever argued that the standard of football in the CL is shite? They're just individual games of fitba featuring the world's most expensive players, so games are equally as likely to be shite or good as any other level of fitba. I think most people have an issue with the tournament itself, the way it's setup etc. which fits nicely with the anti-English agenda, because it is largely similar. They don't like what it is rather than what it produces. I don't dislike a champions league game, I just dislike (or am not interested in) the tournament itself. Isn't that a pretty reasonable stance to take?

That's a bit of a stupidly general rule. The fact that Taylor returning isn't the issue, it's the fact that we know he's not that good. Considine is miles better than Ash with the ball at his feet. Devlin too, for that matter. That's the issue. With one right sided defender who is poor on the ball (Devlin), we needed a player who is far more comfortable on the ball than Taylor (Hoban-type). Devlin and Taylor are both uncomfortable on their strong foot, so to consider a partnership of the two of them with one playing on their wrong side is seriously playing to our weaknesses. I can only assume McKenna is staying and so Considine and him will cover left, and Taylor and Devlin right with little need for cross over.

For those that don't believe KFP.... https://www.afc.co.uk/2019/06/04/ashton-re-joins-the-dons/ Fuck sake dons.

McInnes Hedges his bets on Welsh wonderkid.