RicoS321

"Cup runs can invigorise the team" Sam Cosgrove, 29/2/20 Get that one on a t-shirt. He did well when he came on

Some goal from Ferguson like, having a great game. We're doing well in difficult conditions. Need another goal.

Ojo back thankfully. Looks like a back four, with mcginn supporting Main. Despite his stupid fuck up against county, glad to see Campbell given another start.

I thought they got cancelled at the winter break?

Aye, wasn't great like. As others have said, the sub should have come straight away. I think McInnes was in a difficult situation however, because he had to take off either Main or Cosgrove and it would have been a blow to either player's confidence. He should still be making that call, and not doing it cost us the game. Although Campbell sold his teammates with his bookings. In fairness to the ref, they were both blatant bookings. I don't think Cosgrove and main will work out together, so we need to revert for the st mirren game. Hopefully the weather will have improved by next weekend too as the conditions didn't help the game at all.

Great tribute from McInnes to Consi there. Deserves it, he's ace. Also said he was hoping to hold out until half time in normal time because he was very concerned by our play, which speaks volumes as to how poor McGeouch and Bryson must have been. We'll let him (McInnes) off for it tonight. Hopefully we kick on from here.

Hope ye didnae leave early?

I pished myself just after Cosgrove scored. It was worth it just to hear the winning goal go in.

Holy pishflaps, that was some listen. Shove that up yer champions cunting league you fucks.

Sounds like the changes worked in terms of improved performance. McGeouch hasn't looked up to it since he's arrived, not looked fit. Bryson is unlikely to be fit either, so I suspect an element of enforced change through both performance and fitness.

Yassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Especially as McGeouch has been poor so far. Bryson, McGeouch and Ferguson has the same ring to it as Ojo, McGeouch and Ferguson.

But that's the point. If we have one single entity called AFC, whose footballing operations (girls+boys) makes X amount of money, how can the club legally justify splitting it's footballing salaries down specific gender lines? You've done yer legal stuff in the past, how do you think that could be justified? It seems really open to challenge in my mind like. A total minefield. As I say, I can't think of a single organisation that would operate on that revenue-based-salary approach other than for things like bonuses. I'm in total agreement that the way you suggest is probably/likely the way it should work, but I've a feeling that something (or someone) will occurr at some point soon that challenges that. It's interesting like.

Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit? Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing). Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City). Where I don't see any of the above being an issue is in women's fitba. They don't operate within the same league, the Scottish Cup isn't run in parallel with the Scottish Cup - Women's draw, nor the World Cup in parallel with the women's. If that were to become the case then there could be merit in pay parity. The bottom line is that clubs like the dons have seen an avenue in which to make money from the women's game. They've seen a market. If it comes to it that AFC have employees working full-time, playing the same number of games, in the top league of their gender side of a draw then I think AFC will have to - at some point - face the issue that a man in their employment gets X amount to do their job, with a women getting Y to do the same role. Much the same as every office does. We've all likely been in a situation where a worker (male or female) gets paid more/less/same than us despite doing a worse/better job but they have been there longer or have the same role but are shitter at it. I can't think of a good example of a company where one division will get paid more than another for doing the same job simply because that division makes more money (I'm sure it happens). I'm playing devil's advocate slightly of course, but it's clearly not a clear cut issue (and I disagree entirely about tennis), and it would be interesting to see if it stands up in court, when the inevitable time comes. I'd like to see AFC birds have their own separate legal entity, leagues and association and so on to be sure that the two were segregated completely. Even more so when it comes to setting up the cheeks version of mens-bigotry-lite - I see a massive opportunity for the girls to do something completely different to the men. Where I see "gender equality" being a thing is in the assimilation of AFC girls and boys at all. I'm not sure, however, if it's being done to promote gender equality or as an attempt to make sure that a market is not missed out on. I'd say that it's probably the latter and so, in the true traditions of capitalism, you get what you deserve in that regard.

Expect a back 3 on Sunday, as I expect that's why we were experimenting with it against Hamilton and the Killie game. The main reason I think we're seeing it is because the Tims are currently deploying a 3-5-2 and McInnes likes to match up. I think Logan was given a run out last night because McInnes intends to take him in instead of McLennan, making it more like a 5-3-2. I think he might go Main and Cosgrove and drop Kennedy, with McGinn out wide. I'd rather see a more mobile player alongside Main/Cosgrove, but I can imagine McInnes thinking it might work. Will be interesting.

Aye, Considine deserves huge credit, has had a great season again and Devlin could learn a thing or two from him about distribution - he nearly always plays an actual pass out of defence rather than a punt (although Devlin did manage to cross the ball well a couple of times). But, yes, it was just Hamilton. I think that back 3 would really struggle with the pace of the Tim. The distance between Considine, McKenna and Devlin was great to see, as was the number of times that either one of them was high up the pitch getting involved in play, but that's also very easy to exploit for a team as good as the Tim. I totally agree about seeing McGinn close to Main through the middle. It was great to see, and his movement really helped. It's frustrating that this hasn't been done with Cosgrove and McGinn, especially when Cosgrove was mis-firing and needed the additional help. It's almost like he can only play one way with Cosgrove in the team, yet I think Cosgrove and McGinn would be significantly better than Main and McGinn given the opportunity. It will be very interesting to see if Campbell gets in ahead of McGeouch on Sunday. McGeouch has been average since he came and doesn't yet look fit. With Ojo improving and Ferguson doing better last night, McGeouch is clearly the weak link in there. With Bryson returning that may give us something more in the coming weeks too.

Some half. Main playing well up front (although lucky not to be booked for the foul on Easton), with McGinn giving him the additional space to work in. Back 3 looking good, with Devlin getting closer and closer to completing a pass. Ojo looking very assertive in midfield, still not convinced by McGeouch (or the midfield of those three generally). Kennedy and McLennan rarely beating their men, but a fantastic run from McLennan for his goal. He was a great finisher as a youngster, hopefully that can come back to him with a bit more first team experience. A big second half ahead of Sunday would be nice. Get a few more the dandies.

Shoehorning McGeouch back in because he's made a rod for his own back. I'm assuming a straight 4-3-3. Difficult one to pull off against most teams these days due to lack of width. Apologies, didn't notice Logan missing, with McLennan in. 3-4-3 then. Marginally better. Ferguson probably play leftish.

Despite being horse shite, I expect Main to start given that he wasn't horrendous when he came on at the weekend. The 3-5-2 might be a shout as we drifted towards that at times in the game, and given Campbell played well in that wide role, it might provoke McInnes into keeping it. I actually think that our central defenders don't suit it against better teams, but it is probably no bad thing to try against Hamilton. Anderson needs some decent time, as he is the most likely to solve our lack of goals issue, so expect to see him given 6 minutes on the wing.

Surprised to see Campbell playing, but was our best player. Ojo half decent too and should definitely keep his place ahead of McGeouch who was pap the other night. The defence was fine. Mcginn okay. The rest pap. Kennedy's crossing was a joke. Little scooped chips into the area. Hasn't put in a single cross since joining. McLennan did better in his 6 seconds of ball time. Agree, the subs were pathetic. Anderson needs some proper minutes, it's ridiculous to expect him to do anything in the time he's being given. Cosgrove needed subbed for his own sake, he's having a terrible time of it. A double sub, ten minutes earlier than the main sub should have happened. Main wasn't completely gash. The conditions were awful and neither team played actual fitba. We'll win the replay on penalties.

Agree with that TC. I'd go with panda's line up with Ojo and Logan in for McGeouch and Hernandez. But I think you're right that hedges will probably remain as I don't think McInnes will risk the 2 up front that he should. Given Killie's strong midfield it wouldn't surprise me to see the 3 of death playing us into a 0-0 replay in the hope of pens in the away leg.

Homosexual grooming isn't different to heterosexual grooming. It's not acceptable for a 42 year old of any gender or preference to groom a 16 year old. It's sick, and sturgeon should have called it out as such. We don't need laws to tell us what is morally unacceptable. The cunt needs help.

Only if you can't understand the words: "Obviously, extremely early days" and "Needs to work on his fitness and come back when ready" and "Looking forward to being proven wrong". I just don't think that McInnes threw him under a bus as you suggest. This should have been a fairly routine game for a guy of his suggested calibre. It isn't unreasonable for a manager to expect a player to come in against lower table opposition and in his preferred position and make a decent go of it (McGeough was given similar 60 minutes or so in his opening game). He's moving from Scandi fitba, so not a total shock to the system playing similar European fitba. I like to make an early call on players, like I did with Forrester, Gleeson, Main, Tansey, Maynard, Wilson, Cosgrove and was proved correct, and May, McKenna and several others where I was wrong. Where I see that I could be proven wrong with Hernandez is his ability to get up and down the line. I didn't think he did it nearly enough, and didn't beat his man once, but he did seem capable of doing it if perhaps he was a little fitter. Bearing in mind I'm not just judging him by his ability to be a first team dons player, but his ability to re-coup (and more) his £800K fee. He's got to be held to higher standards really.

Hernandez was put into a game against a team way lower than us in his preferred position. He looked weak, panicked, of average ball playing ability and unfamiliar with the position. He showed absolutely nothing that would suggest an £800K player. Obviously, extremely early days, but from that value of signing we should be expecting something visible. He was definitely worse than Logan. Needs to work on his fitness and come back when ready, which I'm hoping won't be this weekend. He looked like Nwakali did on his debut. I certainly have expected Virtanen to come in and play as poorly as that. Looks like a very high risk signing. Looking forward to be being proven wrong.

Why? There's about two or three goal line controversies in a single season in the SPL. Even the offsides are few and far between, and the game isn't enhanced by waiting 2 minutes to disallow a goal because some cunt's knee was beyond the defender. Do we really need the level of accuracy provided by VAR for offside? Can we not just accept that when a decision is close then the linesman's decision is good enough? Far better than sitting around waiting for a decision to be made before the spontaneous celebrations can begin. Fuck var, it's for dicks.