RicoS321

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.

To be honest, I can't see Killie taking more than a single section in the South stand as normal anyway.

I forgot about that rule. Have we ever used that to our advantage? I'm thinking Hearts probably in recent years. Have we played anyone else pre-Hampden/semi stage that we could have utilised 20% of the tickets (where they wouldn't have sold them otherwise)? I can't think of an occasion where I've thought that we're getting a big allocation where we wouldn't normally.

I just like picters.

Wouldn't you prefer Killie at home?

I agree. A lot of industry from Shinnie, but passing was poor. Ferguson was poor too though. He does need a break, but I can see why McInnes is wary about dropping him given the cover. If Gleeson improved I think it'd be no bother. Ferguson's work rate is far superior to Gleeson's (although given game time it may improve). Again, it goes back to poor recruitment. Campbell isn't quite there yet either. The tims will have an easy draw whoever they play because they're better than everyone else. The huns will also be favourite in each of their possible ties (outside the tims). We may suggest a fixed draw but the reality is - other than perhaps keeping the huns and tims apart - there is no need to fix a draw.

I think they changed things so that cases are heard sooner after midweeks. I think it might be tomorrow evening, but I could be wrong.

In what way? If they are corrupt enough to uphold Morelos' appeal then they're not going to give a shite whether we appeal McKenna's or not. There's no way on earth he's (Morelos) not getting a two match ban. Our best course of action is to say publically that we won't be appealing because it makes a mockery of the system and would be dishonest to do so.

Why? McKenna blatantly in the wrong, and our manager has admitted as much in his snivelling interview. McInnes had the opportunity last night to go to town on that little fucker up front for them (and their goalie) and he failed miserably to do so. It was a stamp (not a particularly hard one) delibderately aimed at McKenna's groin - that was his very obvious intention. That could have been seriously damaging to McKenna, and something that goes beyond his fitba career. You can't but yer studs in someone's ballsack like, that's one of those things, like spitting, that is the most disgusting of acts. McLean got a two match ban for grabbing the Killie player (I think) in the nuts, Morelos should face more. McInnes should have been scathing, and really emphasised the point. Looking at it objectively, that nasty little fucker could and should have been facing a lengthy ban. I'm assuming there will be no suggestion of McGregor getting cited.

I'd agree with most of this like, especially regarding Cosgrove. Ferguson was poor, really didn't get involved enough and Shinnie carried him at times. GMS had that great run and shot at the beginning of the second, then reverted to type for the rest of the half. Agree with whoever said that Stewart held onto the ball too long. Reminded me of McGinn a year or so ago, missing some good opportunities to get the ball in the box which makes it difficult for the strikers to time their runs. I don't remember him getting a single good ball in tonight, despite looking really good in possession and working very hard. We've played three games prior to this one against them and each they deserved to win but didn't. They didn't deserve the three points tonight - we were significantly better than them in the first half - so fair's fair. The dirty hun fucks. It was good to see us having a go though, we could easily have sat in like we did in the other 3 games. McInnes interview was a bit fucking shite though. It was like listening to Calderwood. He needs to reign that shite in like. It's unusual for him, he's usually pretty clued up in his media chat and understanding how not to antagonise his own fans.

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO." By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here. Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names. Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting. In terms of bullying lawyers, Salmond has the funds to get lawyers that won't be bullied. Bullying the jury? Possibly, but I doubt that'd happen in such a high profile case. If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent. I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court). By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer. I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

Good points. Tyrant, if yer going to suggest "establishment" conspiracies, then at least back it up. The only possible way I can think that the justice system could intervene is by refusing witnesses, or certain evidence to be heard. None of that, however, will make the testimonies of the alleged victims any less true or false. The annoying thing is, is that there is an establishment, and our political system is corrupted (including at Holyrood, as Salmond's interactions with Trump showed) and infiltrated throughout by money. There are a huge number of credible avenues to look down for evidence of this. Why choose something so remarkably uncontentious? It's just a manny who may or my not have done something that many mannies in his position have done before. Stop elevating him to some level of importance beyond that which he once represented. The ideas of independence are not in any way reliant on one individual. This constant need for a "leader" or single person that who we can follow toward freedom (or whatever) is like a form of mass-patheticism. Independence is just something that he was a temporary salesman for. If he turns out to be a dick, then we just get another salesman.

I agree, but I think he will (or Gleeson). I think he'll go for the extra man in midfield (the way we finished against Hibs) unfortunately, which I think is a cop out at home. Whether he plays Ball or Gleeson as that additional man is neither here nor there for me, it's the formation that is the issue. He's done it in all games against them this season, including the opener at home, which was a total disaster with a painting-over-the-cracks last minute goal.

To be fair, it should have been at least 2, probably 3. Dallas' shitness as a ref shouldn't affect us tomorrow night. If anything, it'll have the opposite affect with refs pretending that they aren't huns for a few weeks.

I think I know a little bit more about Scottish fitba than the SFA, whoever they are.

Cairds get cancelled at the turn of the year, so he'd have to have been going some to be suspended already.

Aye, there was no concussion, just one of those cuts that bleeds like a whoor and needed stitches. DM said that the only reason he didn't return to the game was the time it would take to perform those stitches. Interesting one on Wednesday like. Common sense says that we stick to the same team from Saturday (Wilson for Cosgrove if necessary). At home, that's the way we should always be playing. Play GMS very high up on the wing against Tavernier and try and force an early booking, but at very least keep him defending. Even get Cosgrove dropping onto him for the headers from a Logan right to left to put pressue on him further. He's been the key to all their successes against us, but he's a pish defender, so play to his weaknesses (and our strengths). Shinnie and Ferguson improving every week in that midfield and we need to keep that momentum going. Hoban and Considine need to play like the latter and McKenna did at Ibrox and get hard up the arse of Morelos, niggling at every opportunity. Logan needs to play out of his skin again, as we'll need his covering both at full back and across the back when the inevitable over-the-top ball catches us out like it has all season. McInnes, will play the 4-5-1 though, with Ball or Gleeson coming in to midfield (probably Ball, unless Gleeson was any good against Hibs). I expect him to play McGinn out wide (in place of May or Stewart) because he'll put in a shift against Tavernier with defence-first in mind, or he'll play May there with the same instruction. I think we'll struggle with this approach, just as we did in the opening game where we were lucky to come away with a draw. I've a feeling that the Hibees game was the one where we played with confidence and bravery this week and I think we might lose. Fuck it, 2-0 to the dons, Ferguson and Considine.

None of those that left had proven quality though. It's a risk, but I'm actually quite glad to see the manager take one for once. I have no doubt his intention was to get another player in, but we've obviously failed. He'd probably made a decision that the players out the door weren't going to be good enough for the run in, and that shouldn't change just because we've not managed to get a replacement - they still wouldn't be good enough. For Wright and Anderson, we're sacrificing squad depth so that they can become better players by getting game time and I think that's the correct decision (should have happened sooner in Wright's case). Obviously, we'll get McGinn and GMS injured at the weekend and we'll be fucked, but that's life!

Are you counting Lowe as in and out? Forrester Tansey Wright Reynolds Anderson Stewart Who have I missed? Wilson hasn't returned has he? Edit: Jordan McGregor. He doesn't count.

5 out 1 in? Ruthless! Leaves about 21 still, which shows we were heavy on numbers. Lewis Cerny Lowe McKenna Considine Devlin Hoban Logan Ball Shinnie Ferguson Gleeson Campbell McGinn GMS McLennan Ross Stewart May Cosgrove Wilson

Quite happy with the way things are going actually. We're offloading a lot of the wider squad leaving just the bare minimum. With the winter break, I think there's maybe an opportunity to have a smaller squad anyway. We seemed to be very heavy on players, with a lot of guff in there. Could you imagine Reyonlds and Hoban hadn't been injured? That bench would have buckled under the weight of senior players. Wilson out and another in would be about right I'd say. Edit to add: just shows how shocking a decision it was not to put Wright out on loan last January. Arguably lost a year of his career for 20 minutes of game time last season. He could have got a good 6 months at a similar level to Dundee (Partick?) before the start of this season. It should have been obvious.

I agree, but Wright does seems to be perenially on the brink of being good but never manages to kick on. He's like Pawlett. I'd hate to see him spend another 6 months on our bench with the occasional cameo. Barker would be a direct replacement for GMS obviously. McLennan would provide cover, with Stewart, May and McGinn rotating between the wings and the behind the striker role as current.

I'm assuming that GMS going would be out of our hands. Anderson going out on loan would possibly be good for him, Wilson going would make zero difference to anything, other than an opportunity in the budget to bring in likes of Barker and that leaves Wright who I'd be surprised if we let go (on loan I assume) at the moment, given we didn't let him go out last January when it would have benefited both parties most. Although he does need some serious game time, so I wouldn't be averse to it. It'd basically be Barker in for GMS, which would be fine as I remember him being fairly decent at the hibees. We have too many players on too few minutes on our bench at the minute, so a pairing back might do us some good.

Somebody like Cadden would be an excellent signing, would improve the first 11. I think that we'll struggle to get a player like that in this window though, with a lot of competition and cost. A Cosgrove/Devlin type signing with a view to next season and a couple of pre-contracts would really help with the summer shopping list. If we could get Cadden on a pre-contract, we'd be doing well. There's only 15 games left, so I don't think we need another squad player. If we could get a loanee wide player or striker that would go into the first team, I think we'd stand a better chance of finishing second. That would have a huge negative effect on the huns again, and really set them up for a struggle next season, so I think it's definitely worth pursuing with another strong addition.