RicoS321

Transfermarkt has him signed for Dundee... https://www.transfermarkt.com/jon-aurtenetxe/profil/spieler/89726 Edit: Apologies, mis-read. Now without club (or as of this weekend). Was with Dundee last season, I don't remember him.

I don't think Rooney's done either, but it was obvious years ago that he was of limited utility against good teams due to his lack of pace, regardless of wide players. Hence why Stockley, despite being pap, was regularly given the nod. The jury is out on May, he hasn't been a good striker since his St Johnstone days in reality. I'd give him a bit more time, but it's an exceptionally high-risk strategy for an entire half season. I wouldn't go for any old Schalk for the sake of it though, but we need a striker that can take us to the next level. Everyone on here was screaming out for that prior to the Apollon away game (Rooney was injured but also in poor form) and it was glaringly obvious in the prior cup final (where we had Hayes and McGinn) and I don't see that anything's changed with the introduction of May. We simply won't win more than our share against the Tim, Hun (probably not Hibs either) or in Europe with the existing strike force. To me, it'll be the difference between finishing second or fourth.

I have a gripe with Shearer if I'm honest. Do you think he's ever left England to watch a game involving any of the other teams that he's commenting on? Given the presumed salary, do you think that should be the minimum expectation for a BBC commentor (similarly Lawrenson)? Given these guys are ten-a-penny (replace Shearer with any other previous England striker for interchangeable analysis), I think that there should be something extra that these guys should be providing - some useful insight. I rarely hear anything from Shearer that is anything other than you'd expect from a contestant on Catchphrase (see what you see, Alan). There certainly appears to be no expectation on him to do any research whatsoever into any of the teams and players he is watching, their coaching methods, previous games etc. If there is, then he doesn't bring it forward in his analysis. I think he'd be perfectly capable of it too, it's not a personal thing, he's nae stupid. It's just that his fame has allowed him to remain unquestionably ignorant. Compare with Sone's sister and Alex Scott who've clearly done their homework and been sent to do research. I don't know enough about Dixon or Neville to say. It appears that they've been matched on their personality rather than knowledge though (Neville the contentious knob, Dixon the reasonable one, Shearer flitting between both as it suits), which is maybe what more people are after I suppose. Maybe I'm trying to hold the BBC to too high a standard. They should have had it all on BBC4 with half time shortened Storyville documentaries detailing the political situation in each country and how it is mirrored in its approach to fitba.

But ignored the more detailed post under it written before your post, which clearly refutes your poor response about chips on shoulders: If you ignore the typo on "coverage" of course. I've very much enjoyed the world cup.

I'm assuming the "before moving on to other targets" is the dross though? It must be a difficult balancing act like. You want a player who will definitely improve your team, but he's holding out in case another team come in. Meanwhile, you're registering an interest in your backup player without letting him know that the's second choice to the player that you actually want. It's easy for us to look on from the sidelines, but there are so many outside factors involved when signing a player that are outwith the manager and club's control. It'd be interesting to see a list of the players actually wanted versus those signed over the last few years.

That's nowhere in their remit as national broadcaster. I'm not a hun, I don't boycott things because I dislike a program. BBC have some excellent programs. I have no other option than to use it to watch world cup matches (atrocious internet connection at home). Furthermore, as I stated earlier, it has nothing to do with England being the only home nation. If Scotland qualified, the coverage would have been exactly the same. Lineker would have still presented his smarmy bullshite after Germany were caned. The evidence for this is at the last Euros (featuring sideshows of NI and Wales) and previous tournaments. This isn't being done because England are the only home nation, and that shouldn't be used to justify it if it was; England isn't the only nation being served by the BBC, which is the point. Ahh, so you didn't read my point then? I'm not, and have not, requested "Scottish" coverage of the world cup. I'm asking for a non-partisan presentation of the entire tournament as a celebration of football, with great insight into all the teams on show. A really strong show with none of the jingoism and England previews that are completely unnecessary, and a turn-off for a 10M populace that isn't in England. Something that gets right to the heart of the tournament and tells us stuff we didn't previously know. Then, above this, good quality shows that individually represent the home nation(s) and partisan coverage on match day. Before anyone brings up any ridiculous argument ("that's just the way it is/always been" type non-argument), I am very aware that nothing is going to change. I'm merely discussing this on a fitba forum to see if anyone has any other views, and what everyone else's idea of good coverage would be. I think it has a huge impact on non-fitba television and politics in general and, as Rocket suggests, is pervasive in other areas too. I'm not annoyed by the coverate either, I'm disappointed by it. I think it's a great opportunity missed.

Dutch coverage isn't forced upon Belgians or French though is it? That's the entire point.

I don't believe this. Not in a McInnes team. His workrate isn't high enough. Unless that dramatically changes under McInnes, which is doubtful (at his age), then I'd have him nowhere near our wide areas or attacking midfield. He's very similar to Stewart in that regard, and of average pace too. We do need a striker though. Can't believe anyone who watched us last season doesn't think so. We've only got Cosgrove who appears to be able to play against better opposition, and that could be an anomoly. However, it needs to be a striker who is better than what we've got and that isn't Schalk. Edit: Aye Manc, we should offload when we get someone in.

Exactly, so it's not really relevant to the point I'm making then. Interesting nonetheless, I'm not criticising!

Hector, Christie, Ward and Logan would be the others, with only one of those (so far) resulting in a succesful signing. Stewart was okay. Overall we have a low success rate in the loan market compared to our (low) success in the general market. However, perhaps the cost of the mistake is a lot lower. Previous loan signings have little bearing on future loans however and, as long as we get the terms correct (unlike Ward) they should be utilised if they can give us a better quality of player. It's a gigantic "if" though. Last season, Stewart probably had less of an impact on Wright or Ross's game time than Maynard, so loan deals are not exclusively bad for youth development. Rather that we buy/loan any player as squad filler in positions where we have a youngster with potential to fill on an ad-hoc basis.

Indeed, for Scotland matches. Did they present entire tournaments (not that that is what I'm suggesting should happen)?

Scotland matches, yes, I'm speaking about the entire tournament. The entire tournament(s) were covered via an English lens, that was my point. I have no issue with us getting English coverage of English matches. I don't need to view Spain v Portugal with a 7 minute half time preview of the England game 3 days later, or a Germany game with them presented as some sort of enemy. The entire tournament is presented to me, in Scotland, as if I was English. The BBC have an obligation not to do that. They should be better than that. They should hold themselves to a higher standard. I'm saying that its disappointing, and a missed opportunity, that the coverage is so partisan. You raised the subject of class, which Rocket then extended to Lineker, and I'm saying that the partisan coverage in its entirety lacks class.

We wouldn't get Scottish coverage. Expecting it is also different to desiring it, which I definitely wouldn't. The criticism was one of class, and I'd say it entirely lacks class to present in bias. I'd rather see a really well informed fitba program that provided a neutral view of the tournament with a lot of insight into the game in different countries. It's supposed to be a celebration of world fitba, the BBC should hold itself to higher standards because they have the funding and ability to do so. Have separate, unapologetic, half hour shows (nightly if necessary) that go into the detail of the home nations as and when they qualify. I'm more than happy to accept bias when the home nation is involved in a match too, there's not an issue there. An entire tournament viewed through an English lens is fucking tedious though. Edit: I've watched tournaments that Scotland have qualified for, and those tournaments were still presented as English shows. The notion that Scotland would get anywhere near the coverage is ludicrous. There would be (was) a patronising bias toward Scotland, which is neither asked for or required, which was similar to that received by Wales in the euros.

It really was, wasn't it? It was pathetic. Surely classless is ramming a camera in someone's face continuously and not expecting them to react? Classlessness was his pathetic jingoism and partisan bias when Kane didn't get a penalty against Tunisia, or his flippant remarks about Germany. I have nothing against Lineker in general (mainly cause I don't watch him enough to care). He made some decent points last night about VAR in the face of dimwitted strawman arguments from Ferdinand and Drogba, without appearing condescending. He often offer more than the supposed experts on his show too (not sure why he wouldn't of course). However, he presides over the worst coverage of a world cup it's poosible to imagine. It was a huge opportunity for the BBC to provide a view of world football, with massive insight and a chance for everyone to learn something they might not have known about the game in respective countries. Instead we get the English lens of partisan bollocks with half-arsed punditry opinion and a distinct lack of evidenced analysis. The fitba has been decent though.

I don't get this (if true, obviously). Much like Tansey, he just doesn't fit into a McInnes team. He doesn't have the required attributes such as work-rate and positional awareness. He is of moderate pace. Like Greg Stewart, he's a player who will get us goals/points against the crapper teams, but won't do anything against the Tims or in Europe. If he was being purchased as a decent squad wide player to replace Stewart, then I could see the benefit. However, he doesn't cover the ground required of a McInnes wide player so he can only be thought of as a striker. We need a striker, definitely, but it has to be one who can take us forward and bridge that gap between us and the tims (and huns with their latest signings). We already have 3 strikers who will work well against lower opposition (Cosgrove yet to prove that, but signs are decent). I don't think we need another. Perhaps I'm missing something in his wide play that exists, but I don't see it. That's not to say he isn't skillful and talented, but just that he doesn't have what it takes to be the modern fitba'r fa's required to cover every inch of grass. I see him being another Tansey/Storey/Maynard* taking up a place in the squad that could be better filled. *okay, nae quite Maynard

Your ideas seem reasonable, however there is no such thing as "UK" football. Apart from that, all good!

Reading the quote, it looks like he's talking about the Tims. That we, along with the hun, will be challenging the Tims. Otherwise the rat hun fuck would surely have said "They will be trying to challenge us" and not "with us".

Does anyone have a mobile number that I can use for pie complaints? My recent contact just left.

Holy fuck. I should make all my selections in a 40 second rush just before the start of the first game. I should definitely have checked these predictions before putting on any bets too (which I didn't).

Nope, see my post on the last page, it's entirely (not entirely, but mostly) down to salary. Tavernier will be on £10-15K per week at the hun. If he has a four year deal then that's £2-3M of yer purchase price right there. This is because they are expecting £2-3M worth of playing for Tavernier over the next 4 years if he was to stay. You then add on an additional amount (50% again) if the purchasing team really want the player and the selling team wants to retain them. That's the general run of the mill rule. Exceptional talent - like McKenna - who have multiple interested parties can break this rule (by a large amount) because any future potential will re-coup this addition in either playing performances or future sale, or simply because the buying team are not restricted by cash or are in a different world of money from the selling team (lets say likes of West Ham/Everton bought McKenna or something). We're not being ripped off. If we offered McKenna £18K a week for four years, then we'd expect a significantly higher return on him. A bit like why Hamilton can only really expect a portion of the contract they'd offered Ferguson from us.

Messi was pap. Would be very interesting to see his "metres covered" stats as he was strolling about all night offering nothing. They had nobody in midfield taking control of the ball though, which nullified their own strikers. Terrible tactics. Higuain offered a bit more balance, but largely did fuck all too because they were Calderwooding it by throwing on more and more forwards as the game went on. They should have thrown on an Argentinian Ash Taylor up front, that'd have done the trick.

Not really, the North East can be quite grey, and you'll probably find that the mist descends when you're hear and you'll not be able to see any sunlight despite the summer. Good advice with regard to the Wednesday though. You'll all definitely be fine wearing colours in Aberdeen too, nobody will give a shite. In fact, you'd probably find yourselves more welcomed. You'll get a decent number of tickets, 2,500 perhaps, so hopefully you'll sell out. The home ends will be. Turfmoor sounds good. A real traditional ground, like Pittodrie. When you're here, you should take a trip out to Westhill. That's the soulless shitepiece location that we'll be moving too soon. While you guys are here, what would you do if Burnley ditched Turfmoor and moved 6 miles out of town?

I've unilaterally decided, on behalf of Aberdeen, that Burnley is a shitehole. In Barnsley, which is a far nicer place, they ask if you are "staying" rather than "sitting in" in the coffee shops. Fucked up like. MG, does this same phenomenon occur in Burnley? Finally, have you chosen the name MelGibson as some sort of Braveheart-based alias in order to appear more friendly to the people North of the border? "I come in peace" type thing? If so, the real Mel Gibson's probably a cunt, and his film and associated accent were shite.

Yes there is. Scott McKenna. The arguments surrounding EPL/Championship v SPL are an irrelevance. The obscurity of money makes it pointless.

I see they don't teach the quote function in Burnley.