RicoS321

You could be right like, I just didn't see too many avenues into which he can grow. Already he seems to be an intelligent player, his strength is good, but I don't see his pace improving, which is a big deal for me, and one I think will set him apart from other international strikers. Despite a decent return at Livingston, he wasn't at the level of a Rooney (or Shankland perhaps...remains to be seen) in terms of timing of runs into the box and getting in front of the defender. He's that sort of in-between type striker who doesn't really stand out for one reason or another (like Brophy), but he's got a bit of grit about him that will hopefully make up for that. I was being reasonably complimentary when I compared him to Thompson, I think he was an intelligent player. I think Scotland will need better than Dykes, but at the moment we don't have better, so hopefully we get him out there and give him the opportunity, rather than trying to shoehorn Christie or McGinn or someone else in there.

I think Dykes is average. I'd put him at about the level of Steven Thompson (pre-St Mirren). Mid table championship. Nae quite got the skill of a Fletcher, but strong and good with his body. But I'd have him in the starting 11 for the reasons you state too.

I think that's harsh on Fletcher. I seem to remember Scotland dicking him about before he did the dicking in return. I'd actually have him in the squad even now, just because of the lack of options. I agree regarding McBurnie. Lad's got issues. He's also been pish in every single minute he's played for us.

I don't know what you mean regarding liberal and lord of the flies? For one thing, we don't get much CNN over here, we just see the orange nutjob talking absolute shite and we're expected to decipher US politics from that. Previously, hopey mcchange gave us meaningless oratory whilst firing his drones at Afghani weddings. Most of my US political knowledge comes from books or long form articles in the different US papers. I know quite a bit about the voting system, possibly not so much about the state level differences at the micro level.

But the democrats (as in the party itself) don't think Sanders is a better candidate, they didn't want him near the election. Hence the ridiculous voting requirements in California. The democrats are as establishment as the republicans.

What does "gone so liberal" mean to you?

Out of those that ran, who was the "unsafe" candidate.

Bloody kids. Can't keep their hands off each other.

Sounds absolutely shit. But we'll likely benefit. The amount of yank money (and German in the case of Dunfermline!) moving into the Scottish game suggested something bigger was/is afoot in the European game. This will be a pre-cursor to something bigger and with more money for teams in that middle teir like the dons, hibs, the arabs etc. If we're not already there, we'll be looking at a three teir system (the scum, us/hibs/hearts/utd, the rest) in the SPFL as opposed to a two teir (the scum, the rest). I think a lot of dons fans will lap that up, it's not for me like. If we hadn't already, we'll become everything we hate about the scum but on a cheapened level.

Yes and no. Trump is only the +/- 5% part of the voting, like in the UK (England), most are partisan along red or blue lines regardless. Trump and the Republicans will get 35% of the vote just because of generic voting. The battle is for the 5% swing in those key states. Gerrymandering and cheating the system will take account of almost all of that. Trump's attack on the postal voting system is just another part of a long, well funded and well designed system of voter suppression, ballot fixing and outright fraud. In terms of Biden, I think he's a tool. Just another of the same tired old crap that gave us Clinton(s) and showed Obama up for the non-entity that he turned out to be. That said, his largely inoffensive nature is possibly a good thing (if you want a democrat win). His lack of real policy, his harmless centre right stance might be enough to win by just not being Trump. There's nothing concrete that the media will be able to go to town on him for and - most importantly - his "own side" of the media will back him 100%, unlike somebody like Sanders who definitely wouldn't represent their interests. It might just be enough to swing the vote in the key areas, but he'll need to win big if he's going to actually win as Trump will challenge it all the way and the systemic fraud and Republican justice system will see to it that any moderate win is a loss. The real issue with Biden for me is that he represents very little change in reality. He'll bring in a competent government, make some minor changes that help some of the poorest in the minimum way possible, will do the basics on climate change, roll back on Iran etc. He'll win himself or Harris a second term. He won't have enough of a majority to do anything useful and he won't fix the voting system and general donor-based con that is the American political system. In 8 years time, the public will get largely bored and a more intelligent Trump will come along (Paul Ryan, let's say) with a nastier set of values and the willingness to see them through and the yanks will lap it up. Climate change's effects will be more severe, immigration "worse" and world politics more volatile. They'll vote him in just at the very worst possible time (worse than now). You then get 8 years of a Paul Ryan instead of Trump. You'll simply never get a move from Democrat to left Democrat in the US, it always goes from Bush to Obama, Clinton to Bush and so on. I firmly believe that the yanks (and us) need the jolt of seeing what's really behind there political system, to really challenge it properly. I don't believe they've woken up to just how slimy Trump is and who he represents, because if they did then Biden wouldn't be acceptable either. Nothing short of full scale change of the American (and UK) political system will do. If four more years of Trump is what it takes to get America so low it can revolt, then that's what it has to be. There is no route via Joe Biden (that I can see) to fix the systemic problems that will lead to the breakdown of the planet and thus, I would assume, more war. I'm sure I'm missing something, but for me "not Trump" wouldn't get my vote.

We'll take all those teams, they're pish. Sporting lesbian at pittodrie with a big north sea wind in the air. Belt the whoors back to Portugaland.

I think it was one of those "could go up to..." fees with add-ons etc. From memory, it was £400K going up to £700K. I'm all for McInnes having less power over transfers, but if that's the alternative the club needs to sort itself out.

Cosgrove had great work ethic at the start of last season. He had clearly worked on it from the previous season and was covering much more ground, taking the ball in the channels etc. Scored some great goals too, showing his touch is good. He seemed to take a huge dip when we moved to the new training ground. Whether he took on too much in training, or he got tired being part of a team that were getting worse by the week and hiding behind his goals and punting it to him. I think his own sulky attitude brought him down quicker, but that can be worked on and not unusual in a young player. With the right management he can go on to have a significantly better career than Watkins. I'd be very annoyed if we don't take advantage of that by offering him a much better team and style to play in.

He's not as good as Cosgrove, on the ground or in the air. We can choose to play on the ground with Cosgrove in the team. But it's not really about being on the ground or in the air for either really, it's about getting the ball to them quickly. I'd happily have Watkins of course, he's a good player, but he's nae scoring 20 goals a season.

Aye, mods, I think you missed one when you were handing oot the cairds. This one's got nothing to add to life.

I disagree, we're perfectly capable of playing the ball on the deck when Cosgrove is playing, the important thing is movement in and around him. Our problems last season stemmed from McInnes flooding the midfield with exactly the same player and chopping and changing the wingers every six minutes. If Cosgrove had the movement around him today at times last season, he'd have been a far better player (we did have that at times early in the season). Cosgrove has a good touch and lay off and is excellent when you get the ball to him early. Better than Watkins and Main, definitely. It's when you lazily pack the midfield and hopefully punt it to his coupon that he struggles. Wright didn't do that much on the ball today, but his movement was terrific and obviously Hedges too. Cosgrove scored twenty goals before Christmas last season, and there's absolutely nothing about his game that means we have to sacrifice the way we played today. We can - and should have - both the great movement, quick play and the twenty goal per season striker. McInnes just needs to get that. Other teams can see it in Cosgrove, that's why he has a price tag that Watkins and Main together could only dream of. Obviously, my comment comes with the huge caveat of McInnes getting that!

McRorie been excellent. The Hedges, Wright link up would have been some goal if they'd finished it.

Nice work. Did you hollow it out? Controversial with all that wid. Think I'd have ripped it into pieces for front, sides etc. Looks great though, will be interesting to see if it there's a lot of movement over time. Fit type of wood is it? Looks like a mahogany or gum maybe? Nae really up on my Aussie timmer.

Yep, 3-4-1-2 would be the business like. Wright ahin Watkins and Hedges. Good looking line up if so.

McGeouch dropped? Controversial. If it's three at the back, it'll be interesting to see if it's McRorie or Hoban in front. I'm assuming McRorie. I can't imagine having that attacking midfield, but with confirmation that it's gogic out, perhaps he thinks he can afford a midfield of Hedges, Wright, Ferguson*? *I mean if it's a four in defence (which I don't think it is)

I thought your point was that they were using heat maps, hence why I asked for evidence. This is just a link to some other stuff.

There's a massive difference between gchq and the local police. Do you genuinely think gchq are passing info to police to break up parties? Do you even think that the type of person involved at that level doesn't love the distraction of a party to cover up political fuck ups. The surveillance isn't about stopping all crime, they couldn't give a fuck about the break ins and "the war on drugs", that's the shite that keeps the plebs' hands wringing and allows the surveillance in the first place. It's only when you challenge the system or join a protest that you actually become a problem. I do consider myself under 100% surveillance, and I do consider it an issue, but you seem to be drawing the wrong conclusions from that surveillance in my view.

I'd agree about Kennedy, but not seen anything from Hernandez to suggest he's any better. Logan is significantly better than both defensively.

Aye, musk's a weird fucker. Wouldn't trust him with that shite. Snowden warned that it was possible. Is there any evidence of police using heat maps to break up parties?

Right...