RicoS321

Dom Ball, who's cover for Shinnie. Campbell cover for Ferguson. It's not ideal, but if we get the opportunity to ditch Gleeson now, it might be an idea to take that. The biggest issue would be if both Shinnie and Ferguson get injured, as Ball and Campbell isn't strong enough. Shinnie could probably carry Campbell and we'd be okay, but Ball doesn't have the movement. One issue I can see is that if Lowe gets injured or suspended. The gulf in midfield, to me, means that you can't move Shinnie in to cover, it'd have to be Considine or Reynolds. Fine for the majority of games, but knowing our luck it'll be the game preceeding that against the Tims or Huns that Lowe gets a dubious red card that the panel don't overturn. Hopefully if we ditch Gleeson then it'd be to free up space for another midfielder in the mould of Christie (who could have covered for the Ferguson role on occasion).

I know what the bus said. It was a lie based on any reasonable and objective assessment. For obvious reasons. I'm surprised that you'd (or anyone would) even attempt to argue otherwise. I enjoyed Uncivil War, but the glaring ommission of illegal funding was a little galling. Some things are too important to leave out and bought votes on either side should have been the number one focus given its impact in future elections. More so when such a slim majority is gained. As I say, I've no issue with the concept of Brexit (no deal) at all, it just needed to be fully articulated prior to any referendum (like the independence white paper) and - in my opinion - should not have been subject to referendum at all. That articulation should have said that our Brexit vision will consist of the following: - Move to WTO rules - hard border between NI and Ireland - Freedom of movement revoked in the EU area Again, I have no problem with the above statements at all, and all are consistent with what is now called a "no deal" brexit. Obviously the actual "white paper" would have added more detail, but these basic points would have been clear. The campaign, at no point, articulated this (even high level) detail (in fact it actively rejected the above statements on numerous occasions), which has allowed yer remainers to pish about with Deal or No Deal and "people's (wankers') vote". Without this statement of basic fact, it is very easy for remain MPs to form the opinion that at least 2% of people did not vote for the above - and I would be inclined to believe that too, thus removing any majority for a No Deal (which is exactly what I believe a vast majority of Leave voters voted for). The bottom line for Leave is, if you don't run yer campaign honestly and openly (which is very much borne out by The Uncivil War and the sloganeering highlight) then you deserve all you get when people choose to ignore the result - you give them a way in. The biggest thing that I took from the documentary is that if they actually ran a campaign clearly highlighting the above three points, I'm almost certain that they would still have won. Leave has to take the brunt of the criticism for the current shambles, they simply weren't prepared enough, not explicit enough and didn't give enough detail. It's like they didn't even believe they'd win by being honest. Stupid cunts.

Ahh, fuck, nae luck. Anyway, just to prove my worth as a scout (and take first place in the Gleeson and Forrester are pish race):

You've got nae hope, you can't even quote properly...

Fuck knows. I suspect they looked at him and saw a guy that is capable on the ball and pretty capable of doing the range of passing in a similar fashion to Tansey at ICT. Perhaps there is a dearth of statistics (or they are inaccurate) on a player's coverage during a game and the scouts were drawn into the trap of associating balls-skills with running and effort. If a player makes a number of good passes, or nice touches then I suspect they can appear significantly better than they actually are, or be seen to be doing more than they are - just my theory like, probably pish. For Tansey, I suspect that if - as I assume it was him - McInnes saw him in games against us then he was just too close to the action in the dugout. From further back and in the ends (I sit in RDL) it was clear his movement was pap, but he had good quality when on the ball in his days with ICT (again, my theory). In terms of "going through the motions" at Peterborough, I suppose that can be seen in two ways. One is that there is a good player with a bad attitude and the other is that there is a good player with a good attitude that isn't happy in their current environment. You have to assume that AFC saw the latter and saw the huge possibilities for improvements in his game that could turn a cheap investment into a good one. That isn't a ridiculous position to take when it comes to the lowe English leagues. They're a totally different kettle of fish to up here. It was obvious that he didn't have the physical attributes to play in the hoofer divisions, but not unfeasable that he'd have the physique to play in our league. Turned out he was just an absolute fanny as well as not being capable of the additional effort and that became apparent on day one (to me anyway) for us. It was clear almost immediately that, even with huge improvements in the required aspects of his game he wouldn't reach the required level. In short, fuck knows, I think it's probably just quite a hard job and a lot of it is down to luck!

Ahhh, I see fit yer saying, apologies. I suspect he's effectively been given a small pay-off with a gardening leave style agreement whereby if he gets a new contract within the life of his contract with us then we stop paying him. Would seem standard.

I don't think we paid £200K with the intention of releasing him in the window..... I'm not sure what your solution is? Stop paying money for players in case it doesn't work out? I think it's good that we have the ability to admit our mistakes and get rid. Far better that, than feeling obliged to give him a 20 minute run out here and there in order to keep him happy. Would a £100K (half our Forrester fee) increase in the recruitment staff budget result in a better return on our scouting? Signings like this, Tansey etc would certainly suggest some investment wouldn't be wasted. Although, I have no idea what additional scouting could be bought for that type of money. I'm going to claim that I had first call on here suggesting that Forrester wasn't up to it (and Gleeson). From the minute I saw him, I could tell that there was a huge part of his game missing to play in the current AFC team. I also called out Tansey before he signed, and Storey. I think I could get a better return on our investments if the club were willing to pay me £100K

Aye, I don't agree with it either, I just mean that it's reality. It's short-termism at its worst. That said, we were very close to getting Christie permanently, in which case would you have thought twice about Morgan coming?

Well, aye, but what if the Tims loaned Morgan to Hibs and his goals and assists led directly to them gaining 9-12 points (not unrealistic) and finishing above us? I'd be happy enough that we've eplicitly rejected a model that relied on Tims ahead of our young players (Wright and McLennan in this case, who may be worse players than Morgan - I've only see him play once, and he was average) even if it meant us finishing lower in the league, because that's just the way I am. However, from the point of view of the manager who's job will be lost through poor league finishes, you could surely understand the dilemma? It has to be a club decision, and it has to be publicly articulated at club level (i.e. above McInnes) and built into expectations. Perhaps even with an agreement with yer Hertz, Hibss, Killies and Motherwells to alleviate the potential of the player just going elsewhere.

Obviously I hate us getting players from them, but pragmatically speaking though, we got a player who won us several points and progressed us through tournaments (semi final goal v Hibs for example). Whilst we developed a player for the Tims, arguably they could easily have just bought a player of similar calibre (Rogic let's say) who would have done a similar job and also had no bother scoring against us. I think, overall, we gained a lot from Christie's move in terms of our on the park performances - we were a better team with him in it (although I never thought him and McGinn worked particularly well together, but that's not specific to Christie). Celtic also gained massively too, but that's neither here nor there given the gulf in finances. You also have to factor in the points gained by another club (say Hertz, Hibs or whoever) had they signed Christie instead; he's clearly a good player that thrived on game time. From a short term perspective, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Christie or Morgan as a temporary solution for six months is fine if there are few other obvious options (which is almost always the case in January). The biggest problem is the long term defecit that it creates. Celtic are developing a model whereby they can pick up the best young players (Christie, Morgan, Allan, Griffiths) with zero intentions of developing them. They send them out on loan to either success or, in the case of Allan, not quite there. By facilitating these loans (and, let's be honest, they will just loan Morgan to someone else if not us) we're actively promoting a model which allows Celtic to have zero/minimal downside to taking a punt on a young player. They can pay a comparitively small fee and then have a significant portion of the subsequent wages funded by the loan move with a resulting asset generally worth more than the initial outlay and wages less loan wages received. To me, it's a systemic issue that needs to be addressed further up the chain than AFC (although AFC could certainly highlight it), perhaps by preventing loans between clubs in the same league. Whilst Morgan could probably have/may still go down South for a spell, that possibly wouldn't give him the same Tim-ready experience that he'd get in the SPL. I think that would be a simple solution to a problem that isn't being addressed or recognised, and would probably prevent the Tims going for players like Morgan in the first place, who clearly aren't anywhere near ready for their first team, but allows them to have significant control of the best players in the league(s). Until that type of legislation is passed however, we may be cutting our noses off to spite our faces - from an entirely pragmatic perspective - by not pursuing these types of loans, as inevitably our loss would be someone else's gain.

I don't think it was. The No campaign was run in a very similar fashion to the EU No campaign. I disagree with Kow, in that the EU leave campaign was not project fear, it was just project lie. There was nothing fearful about the £350M on the side of the bus for example, but it was a lie. Project fear was blatantly the Remain campaign. The problem is that they failed to take the referendum seriously enough (and they were clearly a bunch that couldn't be trusted) to hammer home some of the difficulties associated with Leaving. They tried their 2014 fear approach, but it simply didn't work because nobody really trusted a word they said after at least 20-30 years of treating the electorate with contempt. When you dumb down politics (and probably education) to the extent that we have in the UK this century then feed them a bunch of pandering, half-arsed shite (on top of a decade of austerity) then the result should be fairly inevitable.

Yes he did play right back for us. I actually thought he was a right footer playing at left centre half for St J, but I'm probably wrong

I like Shaugnessy, good player. Comfortable on the ball and gets stuck in. I was surprised when we let him go. I had heard at the time that McInnes didn't like his attitude, but that could be nonsense. Replacement for McKenna I'd assume.

It's exactly the type of signing we should be getting in a January windae. Known quantity, easy to integrate straight in the team, zero risk. Good business indeed. The summer is different, you get much more time to assess and settle the player in.

And changed his name.

That'd be fucking ace.

Ace. Stuart McCall. Total fuck up. Thon Dodds header off the bar was a peach too, we were deserved winners that day.

Yep. Good game like.

Yes, exactly. That's not what I mean by representative democracy, that's what it is. The cunts that we voted to represent us might not know best, but it most definitely is their job to. It was a massive dereliction of duty, and continues to be. That should be called out at every opportunity, and someone with integrity and balls should have the leadership to say it and deal with it. Cancel, and come back (the Tories) with a proper proposal that either unilaterally declares independence from the EU upon voting at the next GE because the manifesto commitments require it, or a two tiered manifesto that allows for EU and non-EU membership which could then be subject to a referendum. In other words: Do it fucking properly.

Can it fit within the confines of Pittodrie? Anything else is irrelevant....

Aye, I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, clearly! The EU referendum was irrelevant, and the "will of the people" is irrelevant because we live in a representative democracy. That means we deploy cunts (always cunts) to do the "how/where" for us. Our decisions are, and always have been (in the UK), limited to a series of policies and manifesto pledges that we believe fit our desired narrative (obviously, there's a shite load of obfuscation and wankery amongst that), because that is what representative democracy is. We have never, ever, adopted a system of direct democracy (see Switzerland) in the UK, our system is representative democracy. I can't say that enough. That is the entire point. The fact that the EU referendum wasn't backed up by the BBC (Ch4, ITV, every UK newspaper) explicitly making this point at every single turn is the biggest scandal that exists in UK politics - everything else is irrelevant. The Brexit vote was not representative democracy, simple as. That's an undeniable fact. We've gone against every single principal we've ever been bound to in our political system for the entire existence of the UK. Think about that. It's fucking ridiculous. The referendum was pushing direct democracy on a country that has subsisted entirely on representative democracy for its entire democratic history. That's fucking ludicrous. And nobody is saying it. Nobody. It's the equivalent of a patient needing heart surgery and the surgeon deciding that, instead of just operating, he was going to put the treatment out to a vote of random members of the public - vote A for Stents, B for a bypass, C for praying. He's the expert in surgeonery, but he's delegating that responsibility to some people who've read some shite on the internet. If I was a politician, I'd be fucking raging that some cunt thought they knew the constitutional arrangements required in how to implement my manifesto succesfully more than I did. I'd class myself as politically aware; more so than the vast majority of my friends and colleagues. I'm happy to admit I didn't know the answer to whether we'd better off out of the EU based on the proposed (or not proposed) deal(s). There were no targets, no benchmarks, no goals - it was fucking retardedness. I didn't vote, I couldn't, I couldn't justify it. Where I agree with you is in your reasons for wanting to leave, your thoughts on globalisation. The exact reasons that I'd want to leave the EU. All the issues that were never raised in the referendum, nor appeared in the manifestos/reasoning of those entities pursuing a leave vote. Because there wasn't, and isn't, a plan for those things. Just a faint hope that these things might come to the fore outwith the EU. There is zero evidence to back that up of course (in fact, the UK's involvement in TTIP and so on would suggest entirely the opposite), just a hope. But you're right, the refrendum was simple "stay in the EU or leave it" - it was just completely, and deliberately, disconnected from the end goals and targets of doing so.

Exactly. We have plenty of time to decide on Ball too. I thought it was the right decision to re-sign him in the summer as it was clear the signings we made weren't up to scratch (or risky at best) and I think that's been justified. If we do similar this summer then I'd be happy to have Ball as a known quantity, low risk, option. See how we get on sourcing a Shinnie replacement, and if we're struggling then sign him up for a year. He's already been a better signing than Gleeson and Forrester so it shows how much of a lottery it is when making signings.

No, I'm not. Not one media person is saying anything like I am saying. They are all parroting the shite about "respecting the will of the people" and all that bollocks. I'm saying that the function of our existing democracy - in that it is a representative democracy - means that the vote was irrelevant, because the internal workings of the EU is exactly the responsibility of our representative elected. That is the system in which we live. We need to find a way to remove ourselves from that system by using the mechanisms we have at our disposal. The vote to leave was irrelevant to that process, nor was it it's intension. I am 100% in total agreement with both your points above. Couldn't have put it better myself. There are no parties currently proposing anything to solve the issues you highlight, nothing that leaving the EU (nor remaining) will do to solve the issues that you highlight and no appetite for the revolution that you and I know is vital in order for them to be solved. Nothing was mentioned in the entire process of the Brexit referendum, no solutions put forward. I recognise that breaking institutions down to the lowest possible level (e.g. Scottish independence) gives the greatest opportunity for change, and I understand the globalist project that the EU is, but none of these elements (to change them) have been put forward as a reason for Brexit happening, nor is it what the majority of Brexiters voted for (take back control, immigrants etc). I'd have very much voted for your version of Brexit. I don't see that version as any more likely or viable with a "no deal" brexit or remaining in the EU, so I'd be happy to remain in until that vision is presented (the presentation of that vision is not predicated on being in/out of the EU).

I know the issues regarding both the EU and Westminster, I'm not arguing for or against either. I'm simply saying that the vote to leave is utterly irrelevant and wasn't representative democracy, which is how our existing system works. The referendum doesn't fit into our system, hence why there is no solution. That is because our representatives do not recognise "no deal" as a viable solution. You will not get a majority in parliament to vote to leave the EU without a deal, so it's irrelevant whether it is easy/possible/difficult to leave the EU at the end of March. There is no obfuscation or confusion there just a thing that is. Saying that it was "a very simple choice" is also irrelevant, because it was not our decision to make. There is currently nothing in the Labour or Conservative manifestos that require us to leave the EU, ergo it does not need to be done. They need to cancel it, re-write their manifestos if they so choose and then use their authority as our representatives to decide whether those things can be achieved within the EU and leave otherwise. That's how representative democracy works, not a sham of a referendum. I would definitely vote for a party who's policies required us to leave the EU if those policies were what I believe in. The EU is just a trading mechanism and an organisational tool for our economy.

The bit in bold, I'm not sure that is the case. I don't believe the majority of people who voted leave knowingly did so because of globalism. Certainly not enough to take the threshhold beyond a 50% majority (i.e. the additional 2 percent). They might have railed against the results of globalism, but it could easily be argued that they railed against the results of austerity. Either way, it was a decision based in ignorance (I didn't vote, because I didn't have the knowledge to back that vote up) as can easily be seen in the resulting chaos. The referendum was a fundamental misrepresenting of representative democracy, and it should be ignored completely with a full apology to the electorate and explanation in doing so. As you say, the incompetents tasked with Brexit are not up to it, but nor do they have the convinction and strength to tell the public something that they don't want to here and dictate that that is what is happening. The bullshit about "respecting the people's choice" or "respecting the referendum" needs to be torn to pieces. There wasn't single Tory policy dependent on leaving the EU, so there was no constitutional requirement for change. Cancel Brexit, get an anti-globalist party together with a distinct set of policies which cannot be delivered as part of the EU and people (me, you) can vote for them based on those policies. Being part of the EU isn't a feeling or a throw-away status symbol, it's a tool and series of rules by which the UK runs its economy based on the manifesto(s) of the various parties represented in its parliament. The moment the EU prevents those manifesto promises then we user our elected representatives to negotiate so that they can be met or they leave. This is the sole reason why we cannot get a deal. There was no manifesto for it. Nothing written down that could definitively say what we were voting for. Furthermore, that backstop is basically a safe route back into the EU. May's deal and remaining are pretty much the same end goal, just that May's deal will end up with years of negotiations in the meantime before the public elect a party who promise to end the backstop and go back to being part of the EU with a couple of appeasing changes thrown in.