RicoS321

Spartans were booted out of the Scottish cup in 2011 for fielding an illegible player after a mix up with player registration (the player had been with the club for years, but there was a date missing from a form or some shite). I remember at the time saying that it shouldn't be possible for that to happen in 21st century, and that's even more the case in 2018. No team should be removed from a competition because of an administration error as it shouldn't be possible to make those errors - the process should have ironed out those issues. Players should be registered on a database at the SPFL/SFA, which can be accessed online. Teams should submit their 20 or so man squad the day before a game online. This is checked against the database, with an immediate response if an individual is inelligble based on registration forms, suspensions etc. The referee is also sent this squad via his online account. Teams then submit their team lines one hour or so before the match. If any players not in the original squad are apparent on the team lines then the referee does not accept the team line-up and the player must be removed. The only way an inelligble player should be allowed to be fielded is if they disguise the player as someone else. It is so easy to set up something that would entirely prevent this. It's not acceptable in the 21st century for a team to be accidentally fielding a player that is inellgible. It's too easy to blame the club, but it's a failure at national level. Admin errors should not be possible, ambiguity shouldn't be allowed. Games or cup progress should not be decided on administrative and technical grounds (see Lech Poznan as another example), that is a disgrace to the sport and unfair on the supporters of any club. That should be the same whether its Hearts, Spartans or us. The game isn't about who's the best at filling out forms, and 21st century systems can completely prevent this with great ease. Hearts will get beaten on sporting merit alone. Anything else is pathetic, and a failure of the entire game, not just one club.

I've gone big. Also, I removed points 20 - 30 for ease of reading. Anyone who wants to insult the dons by choosing such a low score should do so in writing with explanation.

90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 - Rico 73 72 71 70 - Manc 69 - BigAl 68 - MBT 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30

I think that there is only one of him.

There is zero evidence that having the cost of a scouting network in another country returns a better calibre of player suited to the Scottish game. Name one team in Scotland that has a succesful european/scandinavian scouting network. The cost associated with that type of scouting network would far outweigh the benefit. It's not simply a case of getting Jimmy's brither to visit a few games in Holland to pick up the next Dave Bus, it requires in country knowledge and the ability to visit multiple grounds per week and see lots of games at a level that would be comparable to our own where the players are affordable. Laziness? Do you think there's a scout standing at the train station in Esjborg thinking "I'm nae sure I can really be arsed going to the Copenhagen game the day, it's raining"? It's pragmatism and cost. We might be able to pick up a good foreign player through well placed and trusted contacts and I expect we have some people in that regard, but to suggest we start setting up scouting networks shows no real understanding of the cost and associated benefits. There's a reason no other club does it. We may also manage to pick up the odd loanee/out of contract player via a tip-off that would be worth a gamble on like hibs did with the half-decent Kamberi (remember, hibs don't have some massive Swiss-based scouting network that have so far only managed to find one player, it was a gamble on a loanee that paid off). By all means suggest something different, but back it up with some evidence. Name one club in Scotland who has taken players from one particular area not in the UK with regularity that would suggest a succesful scouting network in that area/country. Alternatively, suggest an area that would allow us to take in multiple games per week where players in our affordable range would be regularly on show, that would involve serious cost and travelling hours.

The Tims are a significantly better football team than Burnley. Burnley are, however, massive units. They're a bunch of roided superfit fucks, but they really weren't particularly nice footballers. They didn't have the technical skills or movement of likes of Sociedad or even Kairat but they're absolute beasts. Thon Vokes is bigger and stronger than any player that McKenna, Devlin or even Shinnie will have played against before. Being in "the best league in the world" didn't prevent their midfielder passing the ball straight back out of play from a throw or their right back - who was absolutely pap - launching it away in a panic when under slight pressure. They might indeed be able to beat the tims (the sum of Dodds and Miller's "argument" was that "they play in England, they finished 7th"), but by fuck they're brutal. If that's what £119M of prize-winnings gets you these days then I'll happily stick to watching players getting paid £2K per week.

Aye, but he's a fat-headed bellend who deserves a club up his hoop.

I think Cosgrove was maybe told to go down to give time to get the sub on. He was definitely slowing though, but put in a ton of work. Given that was our first competitive match of the season too, it was a lot to expect of him. You're right about May, the passing was pretty aimless by that point in the game as the players tired. Also, by that point the midfield had stopped providing any support whatsoever. His pass to Wright was just slightly behind him so he had to check his run causing him to slip, but it was close to being good. He was also unlucky with one where he tried to lift it over the defender (then spuriously claimed for hand ball), which he did well to get to. I think that, as an impact sub, he's a little bit 100mph headless chicken as if he's trying too hard but hopefully that'll improve with more game time. Still need another striker though, obviously.

Aye, it was a good game, close to a very good game. We were probably unlucky as they didn't create that much, but then neither did we I suppose. At least I can justify going down to the away leg, even though we don't stand much chance. Top marks to Devlin, Ball, Logan, GMS, McGinn and Cosgrove. Thought Gleeson was poor when he came on, but a difficult game to come into in that position. McInnes was right to make the early sub too, with Ferguson a little niaive at times in positioning and possession, but he looks a find. Worrying that Forrester wasn't deemed good/fit enough tonight. From the Red TV viewing of the WBA game my impression was that he wasn't going to provide the coverage that we require of our midfielders, but perhaps that will just rule him out of games like these where we need to sit deeper. Peter Tobin looked okay at left back and was strangely better on his left foot than his right, but got his body in the wrong position several times, which I suppose is understandable given he's on the wrong side. Not sure what we do next week. Without a striker, or a high pressing midfielder we'll struggle.

Right.... but they also got Simon Murray (now left) and the boy McLaren (think that was his name), so a 1 in 3 success rate for their scouting. Neither were an improvement on May or Rooney. Even Kamberi isn't that great, but an improvement on what we've got I'd agree. However, their scouting hasn't picked up a goalkeeper that could lace Lewis' boots, or a fullback better than Logan. We have to accept that there is a lot of luck involved in signings, espceially loanees like Kamberi was (I'm 100% certain he wasn't the find of a vast Hibees Swiss-based scouting network). I'm not seeing hibs picking up consistently high calibre signings without error, nor any other team in the SPL (Motherwell or Killie perhaps). The reality is that we're both operating in a tight market with little funds to spend and the margins between getting a good player and a shite one are small, and they probably aren't the barometer of good scouting. Is there any evidence that backs up the assertion that widening the scouting network gets better returns? Are there teams who are getting a higher percentage return that us on their signings year on year? If so, which ones and in which period?

[ What's baffling about it? It's very clear that the position has been a priority, but also very clear that we're struggling to fill it. Striker is probably the hardest position on the park to fill (there are an abundance of shite strikers in Scottish - and wider - fitba), and the most expensive as they're the most in demand. I don't rate May or Cosgrove (yet), but they're not totally shite either. It's not as simple as going out and getting the first available striker safe in the knowledge that they'll be good enough, we have to get better - and significantly better - than what we've already got. We were apparently looking at paying £300K+ for Eoin Doyle who is, at best, a tiny improvement on May, which shows the difficulty. As soon as you get into the higher fees then you're outbid for guys like Marquis and the other options being looked at who might be an improvement. Also, there isn't a ready made striker in the SPL that we can pinch either where we know our wage offerings will be an improvement. The obvious signing last season was Moult, but there isn't an obvious one this season. Last season we also had a huge opportunity to immediately re-coup our signing fees through progression in Europe (if we'd bought a striker before Apollon), whereas with the Burnley draw we're likely (realistically) to get punted at the first hurdle and the purchase will be a sunk cost immediately - there is no option of a gamble with good odds, so it's unlikely we can afford to spend a huge amount (>£500K) on a player. I don't think it's baffling at all. I just think we have to accept that it's a very difficult market to operate in and that when we start to get down to our 4th and 5th choices then the margins for improvement make the purchase less worthwhile. We know it's a target, but it may take longer to get that target. There isn't a significant worthwhile gamble in throwing cash at a player for zero european return. We'll get a player before the end of the window, but we just have to accept that it won't be straight forward, and perhaps not before the start of the season.

"Loan" and "Wide" I assume! Took me a few seconds.

Cheers, just did them a second ago! Difficult ones like, they all could go either way. England are actually the most likely to get a result in my opinion.

14 goals and 11 bookings last season. That'll do nicely.

Watched Secret City on Netflix. Very good Oz production, with some good characters and a well scripted bit of political intrigue. Worth a watch.

Lower posh seats. Ususally only £20-24 I think. It's my season ticket seat, so haven't had to purchase for a "big game" for a while so maybe I'm doing them a disservice. It's maybe always that expensive. Just to let everyone know, I've safely secured my ticket for the away game #superfan #topdon.

Got my home leg tickets today. £28! Clearly milking the Engerland opposition with the assumption that we won't get further in the tournament. Fair enough I suppose, but whoorin expensive.

I've never been living proof of anything other than: being a cunt can sometimes be rewarding. And in this case I'm clearly a fraud too. Season tickets plus cup and euro games has got me where I am in points. With the purchase of the home Burnley leg I was able to break the 165 point barrier by a couple. Leaving aside my lack of attendance and refusal to sign up to DNA, wear or purchase any club memorabilia, I am pretty much the number one fan.

Not seen Widowmaker, will watch it. Seen some of his other videos like, but never subscribed to his channel. Will check a few more. He's a technical guy, but makes things reasonably simple for us simpletons. Easy to listen to.

Like owning shares in any other company, you have the redeemable value of the shares plus the opportunity to turn up at the AGM and voting rights. That anything more was ever promised was astonishingly stupid and short-sighted. Let alone that it would be promised in perpetuity. I understand any complaints though, entirely. Just to add, I'm over 165 loyalty points and I don't have DNA membership. It seems that DNA is worth significantly more than attending away matches though. It's problematic. Whether directly or indirectly, it'll be being used to fund Kingsford too.

Away game min.

I don't really go to many games these days. I'm just a points whore.

It's okay guys, I'm in phase 1. Sincerely, Superfan

Fuck, forgot my picks for yesterday (Uruguay v Portugal of which I'd have got right). Can I claim it anyway? That's the problem with these things for me, if they're not something you can do in one visit to the internet, I forget. Fuck knows how folk can do thon fantasy fitba shite, it must be like a full time job.

Is it just me that finds twitter a really shite tool for navigating? I don't really use it, but I'm part of the club. It took me about twenty minutes to find the full conversation and by that point it had lost its edge.