RicoS321

I've been to Barnsley. Lovely place.

Fucking Burnley should never be seeded higher than us for a tournament they've never played in. Fucking English fucks.

My brother just sent me a screenshot of the Engurlish page, which has the Burnley v Dons as the top story. With a picture of Steven Gerrard of course.

The huns.

Or we'll get tanked by a manufactured team with 150 times our resources.

Burnley!!!

Huns get an easy draw

Nae Vilnius....

Nae Atalanta....

There goes Glenavon or Molde.

We'll take any of those cunts. This UEFA fucker taking an age like.

So this boy is a replacement for the position we should have filled 12 months ago (Jack)? Good stuff. With Forrester the McLean replacement? That leaves a striker (priority for me), a Christie replacement, a fullback that can play across the back (or at least left and right back) and then a wide player? Then the another 2-4 as squad enhancements and punts that might come good.

I can. They came belting out the traps and expended all their energy in the first fifteen minutes, before struggling to create anything of note after that. It wasn't something they could have kept up for any length of time and it showed. It was clearly a tactical decision to come out pressing hard and high up, and it nearly worked for them. In the end they were exceptionally fortunate that the defender decided to try and dribble out of defence (think he actually took it over the line for a throw), giving away a corner, instead of passing down the line. They were the better side, but I don't think they deserved more than a draw. Their tactics were unsustainable, and they didn't come out of the period where they applied those tactics in the lead. In my view, they got lucky. Obviously, I wouldn't make quite the effort to disprove their deserving if it were any other team. Cunts.

I think that we have to remember that fees are also based massively on salary as well as potential. I'd reckon £3.5, because that's still a huge fee in Scottish fitba terms (Scott Brown, at £4.5M, is the only outfield player I can think of that moved for more than that this century/ever?). We're not paying McKenna enough to provide a useful comparison between us and the championship. For example, Hanley's £3.5-6M would be proportionate to his salary for Newcastle/Blackburn and the cost equivalent of effectively buying out that remaining contract. If you think about it in salary vs potential/ability terms, in Hanley's case you'd be paying 90% of the fee based on his contract, and 10% based on his fitba(ing) potential (ignoring the fact we all know he's pish). With McKenna, almost all the price is based on his potential, with the cost of matching his remaining contract probably quite small (let's say max of £500K). Hanley gets his move by being an established championship player (at the higher end of the league) who can comfortably (or not) slot in. If we were to remove the associated salary/contract buyout cost, then £3.5M less McKenna's contract will be significantly higher than Hanley's move to Norwich at circa £3.5-4M less cost of his contract. Relatively speaking, we'll be getting significantly more for McKenna than Blackburn did for Hanley if sold at £3.5M. That seems to be the way things work in fitba, hence why we never see huge fees north of the border except for the Tims and Huns (I suspect Craig Gordon was on a fair wage at Hearts when sold too). The key is in the add-ons, and the extent to which you can embed them in all future transfers.

I'd say they possibly deserved it because of Tunisia's lack of trying to win the game. However, their overall play - after Tunisia scored - didn't really warrant a win. Anyone who didn't watch the opening 15 minutes would have thought they were pish. It is now readily accepted that they have had "the best 20 minute spell of the world cup". That's now a thing, and a fact.

It's a bit Hearts.

I said in January that I thought £3M should be what we're looking at. That would have seemed a reasonable amount. That was prior to his Scotland call ups and captaincy. If we've got a few teams looking at him, then we should be forcing that price up to around £3.5Mish. The add-ons part will be the key here. If he goes to any of those championship clubs and is sold the next day, his value will be doubled. Grantin Hanley is still taking in fees greater than that, and that should be a decent barometer. McKenna is similar in strength and pace to Hanley, but his distribution, positional awareness and temperament/intelligence are significantly better. The money should be used to build a new main stand.

Aye, that's it in a nutshell. His pretendy "in my day" shtick is tiresome. He' just really shite at his job. The jingoism is alive and well at this world cup still though. I naively assumed they'd tone it down a bit, but not the case. The pathetic anti-German stance on display is galling. The build up to England's game 4 days in advance, pathetic. Just once, it would be great to see a neutral, well-presented world cup that gives us real insight into the teams and celebrates the tournament. Everything through the Enlish lens is fucking tedious.

If you've seen a recent photo then you'd be picking Darren Mackie in goal. Fairly let himself go like, absolutely massive.

In Rooney's entire time at the club, there hasn't been a set of tactics we could deploy against stronger opposition that Rooney would fit into. He simply lacks the pace against stronger, faster and fitter defenders that nullifies his goal threat entirely. He has a level, and it's definitely higher than United, but he isn't going to get a return (for us) against any team higher than Killie. When he first came to the club, it was the Tims, then us. Now there are Sevco, Hibs and - to an extent (away from home anyway) - Hertz all playing at a level above where we were when he first arrived and his top scoring seasons. That - and the loss of Hayes - means McInnes has had to try and find a new way to play that can match those better teams and it has involved shoe-horning May and Rooney in where it hasn't worked. Rooney was further affected as McInnes wanted to try out May in more games than not, and so Rooney was left languishing. When he was introduced, he didn't have the same impact. I have no doubt that a run of games against the poorer opposition last season would have resulted in a significant goal return for Rooney once again. Unfortunately that wouldn't have translated into a goal threat against >=Hibs, as they have players easily capable of coping with him. We need to be looking at a striker that can get a goal return against the better opposition, because as everyone else improves we can't rely on our excellent form against the bottom 8 (that 8 soon become 7 as Jambos get better and so on) to take us further. I completely understand McInnes' position on this one. Also, May being shite doesn't make Rooney better, we need to look at the two separately. We need a new striker, basically. Finally, if we could hold onto Rooney as a squad player I'd be delighted. We're bound to get injury and he can easily walk into our team against the bottom 7-8 teams and get vital goals. Unlike last season, he needs only to be a direct replacement for the main striker though and not a makeshift winger or some shite.

I think, assume, that was to do with "gender fluidity" rather than sexaulity. That's an interesting case you mention though, I had always assumed a DNA difference rather than something naturally occurring after conception.

Perfect min. Exactly this.

Took me an age to get that.

I've never felt that if I'm honest. I think it's easy to say how you feel. I think the PC thing only really exists in the media and social media. Basically, it's only a bunch of cunts with little to say that get intoleranced by other cunts with fuck all to say. Everyone else seems to be able to have conversation without the intolerance and subsequent intolerance of the intolerance.

That's the thing, I also look away when two men kiss (not a massive lesbian kissing fan, but it doesn't have the same affect; I assume, because I'm male) as it makes me gag. Is that what homophobia is? If so, I'd say that I'm probably homophobic. I'm not intolerant of the person, just the act. What seems natural to some, clearly isn't to others. I'm repulsed by something that isn't natural to me. I believe that my reaction is as close to a natural reaction (i.e. free from any outside influence) as is possible, although I have made no effort to see if I can overcome it by watching gay soap scenes on a loop. What I don't understand, or struggle to understand, is if it's the same in reverse? Does a gay man watch a straight couple kissing on Emmerdale Farm and get repulsed by it? Or is it far more complex? I'm assuming what is as natural to me (trappin birds) is equivalently natural to gay people (trappin ither gays). In order to understand it, inotherwords, you have to be gay. It is probably, then, that neither are "unnatural" at all, just different things to different people.