RicoS321

There is. It would be perfectly hunnish like. I have no problem with the dons giving back tickets either, and expect them to do so. I do have an issue with being given a second rate viewing experience in comparison to the opposition in a neutral venue. I hope everyone refuses to buy seats in the East stand.

Yep, I'd agree. Longevity since we were in a final, and the fact it was a final, too. That shouldn't preclude us from being treated the same as our opponents though.

Gazza had some sublime performances for the Hun, but over a comparitively short period of time. I thought Van Bronckhorst was a better player, Stefan Klos too. They were world class, like Laudrup and Willie Miller and thon diving Larssen cunt. Hall of fame is for wanks though.

It'd be good if you - and others - wrote to the club letting them know yer reasons. We should have got the whole of the North stand and one of the ends, they should have got the larger South and most of the other end. Then we could return by section in the shared end. We don't have enough seats with a proper view. We're being discriminated against. For not being weegie cunts.

Yep, ridiculous. Due to Hampden being a shite ground, we get offered 14,000 substandard seats and then questioned as to why we cannot sell them. We should be offered half the South, half the North and then continue to sell the East from the top down if we sell those. If there's not a full house then it's because Hampden is a shite venue - no other reason. Row 1 behind the goals is worse than watching in a pub where you can't see the TV. We'll not sell 20,300 because 20,300 people won't part with money to be treated like a second class citizen. It's not AFC's problem that Hampden is shite, so why do we start off with an unfair advantage because it is?

I would very much doubt that. Once we're out we're out. Nobody's going to back an immediate return and the EU wouldn't allow it. It'd be the constitutional equivalent of letting the new huns in to the top league - we are very much the hun of the EU. For your scenario, you'd have to have a general election before the article 50 in March, which is cutting it very fine. At best, that will be campaigned with labour backing a second referendum. There is zero onus on Teresa calling a general election even if the proposed deal with the EU doesn't get through parliament. In that case it goes to no deal. In terms of the border: no deal means a hard border (unequivocally, despite what Rees-Cunt might suggest). A hard border contravenes the UN Good Friday agreement to which the UK is a signatory (almost certainly). That hard border could move to the Irish Sea (then move again to hadrian's wall...) which the DUP wouldn't like. As you said earlier, I don't see anything other than a hard border working, so either we get a hard border and Brexit or we get a customs union with free movement but with no control over the EU laws which we'll have to accept as part of the customs union. This could, and should, have been on the referendum ballot in the first place.

But the evidence doesn't back this up. I'm not talking about our inability to win in the season that Delia was a shite manager - which is debatable, certainly - I'm talking about the 32 other years of evidence that shows that that particular season was a one off. I'm very quick to highlight our own shortcomings, but I also don't expect us not to make mistakes. We'd have to get every decision 100% correct in order to win the league (even that Ronnie Roar season), whether it be on when to release funds or the signings made from those funds. The odds are overwhelmingly, and systemically, stacked against us. Whether we can do better or not is not what I'm arguing (we can, very clearly). I'm also not saying that there is a "fix" as in a conspiracy, I'm saying that there is a fault of setup that needs to be recognised and addressed because no amount of Milne ranting about the minor issues of SFA panels and cup semi final locations will do anything to address that. He's not going for the big issues. Except it isn't. Not even remotely. If crowd were the only factor then Celtic wouldn't have 10 times our wage bill, they'd have 4. Far more influential is the fact that they made £30M of revenue last season from a competition which ensures that they are then in poll position to be in that competition again the next season. That's the systemic issue. It's beyond argument, it's simply a fact. If it were only a case that ticket revenue was the difference, then we wouldn't have been 33 years without another league winner. I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise. It also assumes that only AFC can bridge the gap. What has Milne's poor running of AFC done to prevent Hearts from winning the league in the last 33 years? Or Hibs? Or Utd (that was a joke). What he could have done was fought alongside other times to get the 10 fold wage gap down to 4, then we'd see a new winner every 5-10 years. The evidence is overwhelming. We are in the most unequal period of Scottish football since its inception and that has resulted in 33 years of unparalleled two-teamism.

That's the bit I'm saying I don't believe. They're not interested in competition, just competition between Celtic and Rangers. A certain type of competition. Nobody is "accepting" that the majority in Scottish football are incapable of mounting a serious challenge, they are explicitly stating a fact. The game, by design, is setup to ensure that the team that wins the league disproportionally increases revenue to an extent not seen in our game ever before and to a proportion (of turnover of the next most profitable club lets say) not seen in other leagues.

I don't believe that for a second. If we won the last four league titles and the hun were bust they'd still be saying that the league needs a strong Rangers. It has nothing to do with competition and everything to do with re-instating the bigotfest, helicopter Sundays and a game returned to post 2012 boredom. That's what the media want, the SFA, the SPFL and probably a large portion of the country. They've built our entire game around it and that's what they use to market it internally and externally (to Scotland). The rest are incapable of mounting a serious challenge. The game is set up to ensure this. It's systemic and AFC fought to keep it that way.

It's a good example you use (Brexit). The evidence was available in advance that the particular type of Brexit (the complete fucking unknown type) was going to be a shambolic shite show. "People make mistakes" doesn't wash when there's a deliberate ignorance of the evidence. The same can be applied to not changing the voting system, the attempted shoe-horning of the hun into the first division and so on. The notion that Milne made a mistake on not changing the 11-1, for example, is ridiculous. He had the evidence in front of him and would make the same decision again tomorrow. Hence his "Scottish football needs a strong Rangers" several years later despite the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. He can still be right on many things, he just has to acknowledge his own part in making those issues more likely to occur.

Fucking charlatan can piss off. Shite from the first minute he entered the park, hiding behind defenders and making shite runs. Compare that with both Anderson and Maclennan.

That's a bit harsh, Gleeson is the midfielder who was asking for the ball. He had heaps of time and options of both Considine and Devlin with a proper pass or a simple pivot into heaps of space (as he did in the 90th minute with a great pass to GMS). It was entirely his own making. His entire game is to take the ball in difficult areas and make something, he should be completely aware where his opponents are as a midfielder. He showed for the ball and got it, Considine not remotely at fault.

Given our penchant for signing blatantly guilty, but unconvicted, rapists he'll always have a place at AFC.

Forrester looks like the type who'd be good in training. Generally lazy, not switched on and never first to the ball but looks like he knows how to control a ball and pass. Nae much use to us like. Similarly Gleeson, those are the minutes that I keep talking about should be reserved for youth involvement and we should have had Campbell on that park today. He wouldn't have made that fuck up either. Good all round performance though, agree with most of yer analysis. I'd have gone Shinnie for MOTM as his work rate was excellent and was the difference early doors between us being ponderous and instead driving forward. Lowe was also very good, with McLennan strong and direct. Defence was solid, Ferguson and Ball good and great to see Cosgrove get a couple (even though his second was weak as pish). McLennan's was a peach.

Yes. The notion that we should start boycotting away games is one of the most hunnish things I think I've heard. Boycott the huns and tims perhaps, but anyone that things that Hamilton are more complicit than AFC in perpetuating the scum stranglehold is deluded. If we're doing boycotts, then we need to look far closer to home for the culprit.

The club should be releasing its submission to the SFA panel for both this and the Devlin cases with a clear indication of what they were arguing and why and where the SFA process has not delivered. It needs to be accurate and to the point. We completely fucked up with the Devlin case and sent out a weak statement that allowed the SFA to come back with a "thanks for your input, we'll look into it. By that we mean, we'll suspend your best defender at the earliest opportunity for having the audacity to question us".

Interesting take on it. I don't know who is on the panel, but I suspect they'd be a lot lower down the chain to be involved in that type of conspiracy. Unlikely, also, given we're not going to be spending any huge percentage of McKenna money on players with a training facility and stadium to fund. I do think that we probably riled them with the Devlin complaints though and I reckon these cunts are the type to hold grudges. There is no way on earth that McKenna's clumsy challenge should be cited; shite like that happens all the time. If the ref had given the decision then that I'd understand it not being overturned because I think that there's enough of a stretch to say that it was reckless and the onus is on backing a referee's position, but to take it the other way round is just ridiculous.

I think it's that last part that we'll not see. As Rocket pointed out a few weeks back, he seems to lack the ability to shoot. Not just that he's missing the target or whatever, but that he doesn't seem to have the technique. Stockley did, but he couldn't do the part of the game that Cosgrove does, which was actually more important to us at the time. If we're playing a 2 then that shouldn't really matter normally, but the fact that our other striker (i.e the one that does the finishing) doesn't exist is a gaping hole in our plan. Here's hoping Wilson can add that to his game - he seems more creative than deadly too.

I think that we'll get an earlyish kick off at hampden, probably about 13:30, leaving plenty time to get there. With the other game at 16:00 at Murrayfield. What a fuck about for the SPFL to get their fucking act in gear. Wankstains.

and the championship....

Classic Daily Mail article. Bereft of logic and fact. Before we all start getting outraged, could someone work out the actual split their entitled to of the full TV pot, versus the amount they'd get if they just shared out Championship only tv revenues? For example, if they currently get 5% of the existing TV pot, then they'd be entitled to about £1.1M per season versus the £700K they'd get if all this money went to them. Basically, if they get anything more then 3.5% of the existing TV deal, then they're quids in. Would it have been that difficult for this spastic newspaper to look it up and tell us? Last year they were given 12.05% of £23.7M prize fund. If that was the same this season then they'll get 12.05% of £24.4M, or £2.94M. Versus £700K. I think I know what I'd take.

Yes, they could. I think that they maybe did for the Tims game a couple of seasons ago. They paid for them all in advance to make sure we got the 50-50 split. I'm sure there were still a thousand or so to sell with a week to go? Could be wrong. They should pay for the 50% and then sue the SPFL for the balance of any not sold. Actually, I'd prefer that the club told them to go fuck their competition and just refused to play.

Why is this still a thing? I thought that the default was 50-50 these days and that the club decide to return their allocation if they don't believe they can sell it. Looks like the press trying to move the story on from their fucked up semi-final day arrangements.

It would be as hollow as winning the league when you have over ten times the budget of your nearest competitor in a sport where there is a direct correlation - and near one-to-one link - between league position and spending on wages. I agree though, it would be hollow. I'd far rather that AFC got together with the other clubs and fought for a fairer distribution of prize funds so that there was a more level playing field on day one. That would involve AFC, too, handing back its European funds too for the greater benefit of the league. What AFC did when Sevco went tits up was to try and take their place. We'll see this season, and in the coming years, how short sighted that was by our chairman. I enjoy the fact that our shite signings this season have made us a worse team than Hearts and probably Hibs, and their signings given them the edge. To me, that's what fitba is about. I'd rather that Motherwell, St Johnstone, Hamilton and so on were given a better distribution of the income so that we can get better as a league rather than just individuals. To me, the scum are no different to the rich kids that run our country through the makings of their own inherited fortune. Fitba is often a good mirror of life, with Scottish fitba an excellent illustration of how money begets money.

I think it's quite obvious. The league is setup in such a way that winning it disproportionally increases the chances of winning it again. As I said, winning the league would be a 1 in 40 year anomoly (at least, I'm projecting on current trend of 33 years). That's a structural/systemic issue, nothing less. It can be clearly demonstrated to have worsened since the advent of the Champions league and/or Europa League. It can clearly be demonstrated by the financial disparity caused only by prize funds. It can clearly be demonstrated by using data from the English leagues based on league position vs money spent, which I've linked on here before (95% correlation I think). I'm saying I don't care what McInnes thinks because it's irrelevant not because I don't care about his aspirations for AFC. If McInnes went into every season believing he could win the league like you suggest Levein does and Lennon does (I doubt either of them do) then it would still not fix the systemic issue of our league setup and the chances of us winning would still be 1 in 40 years.