RicoS321

Aye, SDP were popular in a UKIP style. Lots of votes but no representation. The independent group are riddled with types who wouldn't dream of dismantling FPTP. They just want their parties to return to whatever state they were in in 2000-2010(ish) so that they can re-join them. They are not required to have by elections as we are in a representative democracy. We vote for a representative who will put forward the views of their constituents without being held to party political views. That many peopl might think that they were voting for labour is neither here nor there. They were voting for a candidate who belonged to a party. Otherwise we'd just have parties on the ballot.

It's also a heap of nonsense. Some people don't work hard. That's always been the case. If Ian Robertson had just worked a bit harder he could have been a better left back. If Dennis Law had pushed himself just that little bit further he could have ended up at the dons. In reality, there are very few people of any generation who actually reach their potential in life. There are numerous examples (McKenna, Fraser, Jack, Shinnie etc) of young lads who work very hard and make the grade so the generic "lack of desire to work hard in the younger generation" doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Look at the young kids striking over climate change because their parents and parents' parents fucked up everything for them. It's just lazy, ageist stereotyping.

I actually wouldn't mind that. For example, I don't think Ross will be good enough, nor Rogers. I think that we have to be able to write off players - and even get that wrong - quite quickly. To me, there's a responsibility to the youngster too and that can sometimes mean telling them to keep trying elsewhere/go down a level or whatever. We seem to want to have it both ways though, by keeping them on longish contracts and then spend 54 games as an unused sub. I actually think that the way we treat our "failed" youngsters is vital to the success of our succesful youngsters too. If we're getting rid of a young player, we need to do all we can to find them another club and help them in their future career. We don't want to be in the position that we were a few years back where we appeared to just drop players (a lot of players) on a whim. If a player - like Ryan Fraser for example - sees his teammates treated as cash-cows then he's not going to give a shite about signing a new contract to ensure that the club gets some dosh for him. We need to foster an attitude that says that yer kid will be well treated at our club (we've already got an advantage over Celtic in this regard...) regardless of success.

Aye, totally. He seemed to have full confidence in his starting eleven no matter how shite they're playing up until the 65th minute. Although there have been a number of half time subs this season, which shows a nudge in the right direction (or individuals are just playing even shiter). It also takes him at least 5 minutes to get a sub from finishing the warm up onto the pitch. In my opinion, the lack of quick change was partly responsible for the second St Mirren goal at the weekend. Managers seem not to notice that subs can sometimes just break up the game for a little bit and often take a sub on directly after a goal rather than pre-empting it (Wilson on Saturday). We certainly don't. Not a visible one anyway. McKenna is still being held up as the example of youth doing well in our team, but there has been nobody following him and nobody preceding him either (under McInnes). We've narrowed our squad nicely since January too, so there should be the opportunity for more game time. We're still making the squad-pandering subs that keep likes of Ball and Gleeson happy in games where there is no danger in bringing on a youngster.

Yep, that's it. I missed the full 90 minutes he got v Ross County in the season 15/16. So he's had 3 full 90 minutes and two of those were on the final games of the season (both meaningless - notably he didn't start v Celtic in the meaningful last game of last season). It's a good overview min, cheers. What stands out for me is the 54 unused sub spots he's filled in the league (70 odd in all tournaments). That must put you in a certain mindset. It also strikes me as a more systemic issue that I've highlighted before. We should really be putting targets on McInnes to play youngsters in X number of games. Come January, if a youngster is unlikely to fill their quota then McInnes has to either strive to meet that target or send them out on loan. At no point should Wright have been playing 27 minutes of fitba between last January and May. It's easy to criticise McInnes for this, but it has to be a club responsibility. McInnes' job and career depends on winning games, so if he feels he can definitely win games without the "risk" of playing youngsters then he'll take that option. Youth team minutes/games stats and targets from above down would highlight a club strategy/approach that would also give McInnes a bit of leeway(excuse) if those youngsters are not up to it.

It is compared to Corbyn's labour party though isn't it? It's very much wedded to the Blairite position, or the Ed Miliband position at best editorially speaking. Overall though, Rocket is right, there is an economic system designed around globilisation and maintaining a status quo. All of the UK's papers sit comfortably within that framework. That one might think an Isis girl should come home and the other think she should piss off to a brown country is a irrelevant distraction that give the impression of a left and right. What would a "centric voice" do to break up traditional politics? How would it solve our systemic global issues? The problem with centrism (very generally speaking) is that it doesn't solve any actual problems because to solve them you have to go one way or the other. If by breaking up traditional politics you mean dissolving the power of the labour party then you're right, it works. That has almost zero chance of breaking up FPTP and as far as I'm aware that isn't the intention of these well-meaning and principled politicians.

I think it is a subject that Labour probably recognise they aren't going to win either way so they try and say as little as possible. The faux outrage by the "rebel 7" is exactly that though (perhaps bar one or two). Self serving cunts.

As far as I'm aware, he's not completed 90 minutes in the last couple of seasons (if at all).* Aye, fair enough, although we finished second which was a decent achievement. Regardless of whether you or I think that Wright should have been getting games, the manager clearly knew in January that his chances would be limited and it was irresponsible of him not to send him out on loan. He got 20 minutes of football after the January window. It was a ridiculously bad piece of management (from the outside, looking in - he may have been being a complete dick behind the scenes). *Edit: he played 90 minutes in the Hamilton opener at the beginning of last season and the Partick (hat-trick) game the previous season.

Chukka and friends resign to create new new labour. A new type of politics for the 21st century, leaving Labour as the only remaining no-jews-allowed party. A great day for politics. A new beginning.

7.5 times the drink drive limit (the proper one, not the shite Scottish one). You're looking at around 10+ pints I'd have thought. Far more than I could hack these days like. Good luck to ye MBT.

The biggest issue for me is that we've lost a year in his development. This Dundee-type move should have happened last January. He needed game time then, and was very ripe for development. We were chasing second place, and it would have been difficult to justify him getting game time then. He's now a year further into his career and no further forward. The second biggest issue in my opinion is that he gets played inconsistently. McInnes expects his front 3 to chop and change throughout the game. Moving from wing to wing and through the centre. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually work for players trying to find their feet (Mclennan, and I'd include Stewart in that too). Before they left, Hayes and McGinn had that switching to a tee and they were much better players for it. Earlier this season you could see it in GMS and it's safe to say that May loses very little from his game by being switched from left to right and then centre! However, you have to be given time to develop that confidence within games. That means 45-60 minutes in the same position running at the same man using the same foot to cross at pace, developing that role game at a time. Wright, especially, has never had that opportunity as he's constantly switched from centre to left to right. He visibly struggles with it as he'll have a nice few touches in a game before moving to another position - it's like he has to start again each time. In Stewart's case, Clarke keeps things very simple at Killie giving each player a small number of instructions that play to their strengths within games. I think Stewart has been better since returning, but I think he'd benefit from playing a single role (through the centre for me) throughout a game. He played plenty of minutes centrally against St Mirren, but crucially not the whole game, and too often he was too far away from Cosgrove as he didn't have his positioning nailed down. Similarly when asked to play wide he would regularly forget to stretch the game by dropping inside. It seems that McInnes expects a complete game from his players when none of them are ready for it. It was no coincidence that McGinn had his best spell for a good while when played for an entire half out wide with a clear instruction to provide width and balls into the box. It's weird like, we'd never ask a defender (injuries aside) to come in and learn their role in our team by switching from left to right throughout the game. I don't know why we expect it from day one from our wide players.

In real time, he was about 25-30 yards behind the play (it was a quick break, so not a criticism). A good view would have been a side on view like the linesman had, where you can see the extent to which he's straightened his leg. It's not bottling a decision, it's just that you have to be very certain when sending off a 'keeper and giving a pen. If you're not certain, you don't give it. It's a very difficult decision in real time is what I'm saying.

I think it was on the assumption that Logan was injured after being taken off in the QOTS game. I actually think it is essential that the dons have players that can play in a number of different positions. Hoban is just a centre half who is half decent with the ball at his feet, which allows him to play midfield or right back. If we could sign him permanently, he'd be a vast improvement on Ball for example as he's a little bit stronger and even slightly more mobile.

I actually thought Madden had a decent game that day (it was a difficult one), handled it pretty well and most of the time kept up with play. From where I was sitting at the other end, he didn't look like he was in a good position to call the McGregor one (from memory, I think the linesman definitely was in a good position and refused to get involved). I think it's fair to say that you'd have to be very certain to go against a goalkeeper in that situation regardless of whether they're a hun or not. It's definitely the sort of decision VAR (which I dislike) would help with. Any objective viewer watching a replay of it - or who had a good view in real time - would have given a red card and penalty, so it's good that he's been given a ban.

Fit's that in metric?

I didn't know that, that's interesting. I thought he looked very lacking when he played left back for us at the beginning of the season. Not shite by any stretch, but just stood at the wrong angle when marking his man and his left-footed clearances were a bit straight legged. Like when Considine plays right side of defence. Both still more than capable with their wrong fits (unlike likes of O'Connor last season) but just something about them being on that side clearly not comfortable. I think Hoban will fit quite nicely at right back like.

Good response TC, hadn't thought about the war angle.

Gie the birds a chunce you insecure bunch of pooves.

You don't believe his old man told him that?

There is no double standard over appealing. The huns can appeal as many incidents as they like, that is not a double standard. You seem to conflating appealing with having a decision overturned/go in their favour. I think the term you're looking for is hypocrite. The only double standard is the decision to call in a case where an incident has been clearly seen and dealt with by the referee, because that has not happened in many other cases (see Cammy Smith v St Mirren) which were worse. There is no double standard being applied to Power until such time as he's actually charged with anything, other than the decision to review. If he's given a ban, then there is still no double standard there as the incident doesn't really compare to any other, it's just a poor decision. If we're being picky, we could say that the nearest possible incident is McKenna versus the Tims, in which he was red carded so Power should get a red card based on that.

Yes. He is interested to see whether the compliance officer thinks it was with the intent to hurt, thus a red card. The compliance office - not the hun - believes there is a case to be heard on those grounds. It's the constant comparison of every decision with the Morelos one that gets me (it was mentioned with regard to the McKenna sending off too for some bizarre reason, and the Devlin case too), hence why I was replying. They are not similar other than that a foot made contact with an opponent, so there is no precedent set by the Morelos incident that is relevant to this one. Rangers are not "clear in their belief that making contact with an opposition players with your foot is a yellow card offence" like you suggest - as that's not what they argued in the Morelos case - and nor would it matter if they were because they are not the compliance officer who is the only person who could cite this incident for further review. Basically, if we're going to call it a conspiracy, can we at least get the facts right? The contention is that the incident is being heard at all as it was a yellow card dealt with by the ref at the time (right in front of him too). If they find against Power, then there will be a further issue over what is deemed as reckless/out of control similar to the McKenna vs Tims incident.

But they're right. Morelos' fanny kick on McKenna was a yellow according to the rules of the game. Intention to kick does not come into it, it has to be with the intent to hurt. That will be why Morelos' recent band was upheld, because he clearly tried to hurt McKenna with a stamp to the nads. I think that the argument in the Shinnie case was that it wasn't deliberate (which it clearly was, hence the ban was upheld). Rangers will not be putting forward any arguments in the case of Power, because it is not their case to argue. If it is deemed that Power intentionally tried to hurt Jack or was reckless or out of control then it will be changed to a red (again, I don't remember that ever happening before in this country). If it - correctly - is deemed that he just went for the ball, then the yellow will stand.

Do you mean McKenna's against the Tim? The ref never gave the free-kick, so it was deemed not seen (even though it clearly was seen but the ref didn't think that it was a foul - because it wasn't). To be honest Power's one is a yellow card all day long. It's clumsy and dangerous, but never deliberate. He's clearly looking at the ball. If one of our players had been hoofed in the face like that, I'd agree with the ref. It's a contact sport and sometimes you take a bad one even though there isn't intent. It happens all the time. The problem with these incidents is that you always get the impression they're determined to even things up for an easier life. If there is an "exceptional circumstances" get out clause then it defintely shouldn't be used in this instance (the Cammy Smith one v St Mirren was far more ridiculous from the weekend for example). The problem is that this type of incident is stoked up to be more controversial than it actually is. Pundits are paid to do that, but we shouldn't be taking the weight of their opinions without extracting a little of the hysteria. The incident shouldn't even be cited.

Aye. Did some fine street art like. Was he that good in goals? Or was he just jizzed over because he had a half decent save against some Brazilian dude once?

According to the BBC gossip page (linking the Sun, so probably not reliable) Killie will find out today if Power will face a ban over his kick to Jack's coupon. He was booked though, wasn't he? In other words, the ref dealt with it. I thought that you couldn't face a ban if the ref has seen the incident and awarded a booking based on his interpretation? Admittedly, that's a stupid rule, but I thought that it was a rule? Or has that changed this season? Or maybe I imagined it altogether.