RicoS321

He didn't rank his levels of concern in his posts. Just responded to a direct question.

I honestly didn't realise that was an option. What do they do with you? Sea? Landfill? I'm of the opinion that it's not my decision. If others would prefer to remember me via a funeral then that's up to them. Fit if yer kids want a big pairty to dance around yer corpse?

Aye, but the only place it's going to come from is the fans. AFC certainly don't want it. In terms of your comments about youngsters, I'd imagine that anyone under the age of 40 has no memory of the dons (last team) winning the league, which is an absolute indictment of our league and should be brought up every single week on the impartial BBC. It's a massive issue. Young fans are living through the worst ever period in Scottish football. Fair play to those that come along and watch it like.

I thought McKenna was asking for it short, but you're likely correct. Joe was immense at the weekend. Easy to say that the boy missed 4 sitters, but Lewis is the best keeper in the league (full stop) at one-on-ones by a mile. Covers every gap and players must hate coming up against him. I don't like him being captain because of his position on the field, but he's a fantastic example. To add, I thought McKenna was good at the weekend too.

That's about right I'd say. There was only one opportunity to change things and AFC fucked it for everyone. This isn't a hindsight thing either. I suspect most of us argued at the time that there was only one chance to absolutely pummel the scum and change the game for the better in its entirety, or we'd be back to helicopter Sundays within 10 years. I remember arguing with some cunts on dons mad about it at the time we disgustingly voted with the Tims in the 11-1 voting changes. They actually had the audacity to argue that Motherwell and St Mirren (or whoever) were trying to take something away from the mighty AFC. They genuinely couldn't see that we'd need to give up a little in order for the whole league to be better and that by not doing so we were always going to return to the duopoly in short order. Short term greed never pays and all that. The Westhill shit-piece will give the fans something to get excited about for a short period. Within a decade, the idea that the population of Aberdeen are going to bus it out to the windy shite hole to watch 5th placed AFC is a bit ludicrous. I can cope with AFC having a crap team or a shite manager - that's what fitba is about. A systemically bad league and a club designed to perpetuate that will be the death of them for me.

I've never understood the notion that you have to go a specific location at a specific time in order to "pay respects" (whatever the fuck that means). You clearly think it matters. Or you were just being a dick. Either way, I find it strange.

Getting treatment for an injury during the international break

Fuck sake. Ah well. Saves him sitting on our bench.

Darren McGarvey's Scotland on BBC Scotland has been excellent. When they see us was also decent on Netflix.

Bryson is a box-to-box midfielder. He's basically Shinnie's replacement. He'll sit alongside Ojo, providing the legs and coverage. Ferguson could play the advanced role, but in my opinion should be unrequired for a lot of bottom 6 home games and I'd give others a chance. At the very least, give others (Wright, Wilson) a good 30-40 minutes if we're winning games like happened against County (although, typically under McInnes, moving Wright 38 times in 35 minutes from left to right to centre and back again). Ferguson could easily interchange for Bryson or Ojo and vice versa (I don't think Ojo could play advanced) to give more flexibility and keep all three happy if required. I think that the three of them should play together for the harder games as I think that they're our best midfielders, but I think the 4-2-3-1 offers large scope for a behind-the-striker midfielder who doesn't really worry about defending.

Aye, it's a fair point. Although I actually think that in the forward areas you can afford a bit of chop and change and a settled defence is the key. I'd have dropped Forrest but not Fraser. I'd have dropped McGregor and not McGinn. The problem Scotland have is that they are deficient in quite a few areas and so that lends itself well to not having a settled side. All the players are of similar standard in the areas that we struggle. Forrest vs Snodgrass, Phillips vs McBurnie, McLean vs McGregor or McGinn. Lack of standouts I suppose. That said, Clarke has made a lot of mistakes up to this point and I don't think he's close to knowing his preferred team even before injuries and call-offs. We now have a series of non-competitive competitive games where players will take the opportunity not to turn up and we'll still be no closer to understanding our best team as a result. Clarke needs to do something that every manager since Brown (different era really) has struggled to do and that is to get our best players to want to play for their nation regardless of anything else.

I assume that you would deploy different tactics against Belgium than you would against Russia? Also, we have a squad, and it's an international squad so the variance between players shouldn't be significant. Phillips is pap, but is he much more pap than McBurnie? Similarly, Cooper vs Bates or O'Donnell vs traffic cone. Clarke was very new in the door for his first couple of games (a week?) and so this round of games should be a much better marker of what is to be expected. But then he's had injuries in defence to contend with and limited choices up front generally. Friday seemed to me to still be a bit of experimenting because of the injuries (in defence mainly), which is frustrating but you could see quite quickly that Cooper was pap for example. I wouldn't have McGregor near the starting eleven either and I'd be pretty ruthless about ditching Forrest if he was having a poor game as he's had only 3 good games in 25. You'd like to think that we could make 4 changes and happily have as good a team starting tonight as did on Friday.

No, I was just hinting at mock outrage for my own amusement. Keep us updated.

Should he have been spared because of who he is? That would be the most Tory thing ever.

Obviously you can't back up "loss of jobs" other than by predicting what you would do if you were in a UK company's shoes that has no physical reason to be in the UK (banking v O&G for example). There's no science behind it, just forecast. If it were me, I'd move my company to the EU (my company relies on UK business, so not possible), for obvious logical reasons. Any employees of mine would be, thus, canned. It's basic business sense if your market is the EU or the US or China and if you're responsible to shareholders then you'd have to have a damned good reason for not moving. The thing about no deal is that it isn't just: 1st November - done. There will be a deal, because that is how trade is done globally these days whether you or I like it (I don't) or need it (I don't). Until the point a deal is done, an existing business has to jump through additional hoops under WTO that didn't exist previously. The charlatan will then have to negotiate his fantastic new deal with 27 new countries, which will take him a fucking age because he's an inept charlatan cunt and so are his surrounding Tory cunts. Sure as fuck I wouldn't be hanging around as a company for the shitfest of a deal that the EU let him have at the end of it. Given the fact that WTO rules require a border with another "trading bloc" (nae really what the EU is, but it deals as such) then it's likely that only a temporary waiver will be given before Ireland is split in two, with the knock on effect that the US will tell us to go and fuck ourselves for ruining the good Friday agreement (easier to blame us than the EU). Either way, a deal with the US isn't an overnight thing. WTO shouldn't be an issue there for normal business cunts like you or me, but some of the big companies I work for will happily walk [from the UK] if the EU gets a trade deal with Canada, the US or China whilst still being on WTO with the others as its just good business sense. So very, very likely that there will be job losses and very likely that they will be significant. Good opportunities too, of course, just not likely as significant in the 5 -10 year time. In my opinion, job-losses shouldn't be a reason not to pursue Brexit. You can choose to look after your unemployed or not, it's rare that you get the opportunity to re-define your political make-up (I don't believe that is what existing Brexit does).

Maybe you just got in his way while he was watching and he over-reacted. Perhaps you need to consider that sometimes in the heat of the moment some people get overly annoyed about silly litte things. Also, you say that Dons fans are "generally fucking pricks", but I'm guessing that the "fat mong" was not the only person that you walked past on the way to your seat? Inotherwords, he wasn't particularly representative of Aberdeen fans, but more representative of "fat mongs". Whilst Rocket's approach is a good one if this guy was your equal, but if he's a fat racist mong, then why drag yourself down to his level and not just leave him to it? Or, apologise, smile and say "you're entirely correct sir, it won't happen again". You'll have appeased the stupid guy, plus you won't have to come on here of a Tuesday to tell us about it, because it won't be praying on your mind like it seems to be still. You've let the "fat mong" get to you, you see, which should never happen in life. Just laugh him off.

To be fair to Sturgeon, she really has to let this Brexit mess play itself out and she has to be seen to be against a no deal, even though that would be the quickest way to independence. The problem that both Corbyn and Sturgeon have is that the date keeps getting kicked down the road. The longer the impasse on Brexit, the more the [remain] electorate get pissed off with Sturgeon and Corbyn for not doing anything - despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing they can do outwith power and anything they do actually do will be used against them. They're both sitting waiting for the Tories to fuck it all up, but the longer you do that, the more people think that you are dithering. It doesn't help that we've had three years of minute-by-minute coverage.

It'd be even funnier if it turned out he hasn't actually signed.

It was the telegraph I think, but no, his record as a politician and as mayor (and probably his entire life). Aye, that's about it.

BJ is a demonstrable liar and charlatan. He should not be trusted based on his previous record. If someone told him tomorrow that revoking article 50 would gaurantee him an election victory, he'd do it. He is principleless. I agree with you about Davidson, and I'd argue that Johnson and Trump are the perfect extrapolation of that politician that we've been heading towards for years. They don't bother with truth or consistency, they don't bother even attempting to hide the fact that they are liars. They don't even bother to bluster around the awkward questions, because they know that it doesn't matter. It's impressive. I think you could be right. I don't see a landslide for Boris as there are enough people that hate him, but the biggest minority and easily able to form a majority.

What does that (bold) even mean? Boris projects a bumbling idiot. Is that statesmanlike? Does it still matter? It's certainly interesting gamesmanship. It's difficult to tell whether people will think he's acting decisively or if he's hiding from parliament like he (correctly) hid from the interviews in the leadership contest. I suspect whatever the Sun and the Mail class it as will be the line most people take. I can see a general election being the outcome. Whether it will be pre 31/10 will be the only key element.

He's an excellent player and professional. I'd have him an a heart beat. Simply because he's better than most of our other wide players.

It's frustrating, as the best time to bring through guys like Anderson was a few years back (he was too young, obviously). We had a good, solid squad at the time and had the space, quality and usually the big enough lead to get our youth players playing large parts of games without too much deficit in the wider team. Now, Anderson would be coming in to an unsettled squad and first time, be being moved about across the front positions and have very little leadership behind him to steer him through games. It's nae exactly a good environment for a youngster. I think Anderson in the squad would be best for the team as I think we'll find out that Main is pap and Anderson will offer slightly more. However, I think he'll get ground down by the ten minute appearances and being asked to play out wide and forget his role as finisher. I think what is best for Anderson is that he avoids that conundrum by going out on loan. The question is whether we want to look after our team or our young player? I think the long term benefits would be greater giving him a year elsewhere.

I think that if we had just waited before snapping up Main, then we could have happily kept May plugging away for a month and then given Anderson an opportunity. I think Anderson is still very raw, but he's just as good an option as Main. If he can get a good loan at a high end championship club then that might be better for his development than sitting on our bench.