RicoS321

Shame for Jimmer like, phenomenal goalkeeper. Even in his hibs days he was top drawer. As for his coaching abilities, I'm pretty certain that no one on here (or any other forum) actually has the slightest clue whether he's any good or not. Guys like Bain and Rogers would suggest he does something right, but our goalkeeper purchasing department (we've heard mixed opinions over whether Leighton was responsible or not and, again, I suspect most are guessing) has been horrendous. Langfield's best seasons (2009 and last season) have been when he's looked physically stronger, like he's bulked up a little. On both occasions I remember he mentioned that he did gym work on his own during pre-season to get in shape. After he brought down Samaras for a pen at Pittodrie a couple of seasons back, he clearly worked hard on staying on his feet, and his one-on-ones greatly improved that year, which suggests good coaching. However, Jim never really struck me as the type of person who'd excel at his job (guys like Graham Kirk who are really into their profession). Put in the extra work through watching videos, learning/creating new coaching methods etc. When you've been Scotland's best goalkeeper for most of your career, it must be difficult to have the desire to be Scotland's best goalkeeping coach. Much like many gifted players (or other careers), it isn't that straight forward to analyse what comes completely naturally to you and pass on to others. I often think goalkeeping would be better analysed by someone who hasn't been a 'keeper before where they can break the role down into its constituent parts and build a 'keeper back up. I don't imagine (but I could be wrong) that Jim would be that deep a thinker on the subject. Anyway, good luck Jim min.

Aye, that option would certainly be a vast improvement. My only thought is that transport (food production aside) is probably the most inefficient and resource hungry process we have in the world right now. It's one where none of the current solutions being used is workable, and if we continue to pursue them I think we'll hit an abrupt end. It's also something that could be easily managed without human interaction. I kind of see the equity holders thing just adding unnecessary admin and bureaucracy - a waste of human resource I suppose. It's something that everyone benefits from, so just let everyone benefit from it.

Totally agree like. But I reckon they should look more at what that basic income is for (food, shelter etc). Try to provide those for free, and effectively reduce the basic income as and when the service is provided instead. For example, you pay everyone £30K per year to over food, shelter, travel etc. Once you provide free travel, take the value down to £25K. That way we're reducing the size of the state at the same time. At some stage soon we're going to face a quandary where a company is charging for providing a resource that they don't actually put any physical labour into as it's all done by machine - so it's just a case of who owns the machine.

Nicholas Biddle I think. Venus Project has got some fuckin cool hoose designs too. The glaring omission of the Venus Project is how to transition to that point. My opinion is that our basic public services should be provided for free (shelter, food, health, education, communication and travel), and everything above that is left to the free market. That puts everyone on the same starting point and gives everyone the opt out that capitalism doesn't. We're nearly at a stage where it would be possible to automate the creation of housing and the provision of communication and travel. At that point, why should anyone be able to profit from it? If there are no labour costs, and no on-going maintenance costs, then the state should provide it. I think we should move to a collaborative goal-oriented solution rather than capitalism. For example, a goal for Aberdeen could be to create a city-wide unmanned transportation system that can be run on renewable energy (no on-going cost) and allow every area in the city to be reached from the centre within 15 minutes. Create targets for society, rather than shouting "economic growth" from now until eternity whilst pishing our actual resources up against a wall.

The key here is "companies". I'm suggesting state controlled currency (controlling the issue of it, not the spending), via a BoE style independent (of the government) entity. So it'd be held on BoE servers (multiple). Money isn't stored as cash - only 3% of the current system is backed by cash, so there is no security other than by holding under your mattress. What we have just now is money - mostly debt - held on bank servers and backed up by the tax payer when it always goes tits up. From a libertarian standpoint, fractional reserve doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. With the internet, the velocity of money can be maintained by peer to peer lending and online transactions. Fractional reserve is the antithesis of the free market. It possibly did have a function 20-30 years ago, but not today. Ironically, the last 20-30 years has seen the explosion of new money.

No, it really isn't. They are tapping into future debt, because money is issued as debt. In order to be useful, we have to leave future generations with an asset in return, which we absolutely haven't. We've used half of the world's resources in order to raise those living standards, with a gargantuan level of waste. Value for money? I dinna think so. Don't get me started on GDP as a measurement of anything, at all - politicians measurement to excuse being a cunt.

There is no fractional reserve (required reserve) in the UK. In the EU, 3% doesn't include money loaned to governments (e.g. Argentina) either, so banks in theory can have up to 1000 times as much cash on loan as they do reserves. Although it's irrelevant, as I'm talking GBP. That fractional reserve isn't new doesn't make it right. It's safe to say most people aren't aware of how it works. Banking crashes aren't new either, and they're entirely related to the issue of too much currency by banks. It's a flawed system. There's nothing inherent about crypto currency that makes it complicated to use. Simply that those crypto currencies are set up badly. A properly created system would make currency exchange simple. Far more simple than currently exists. And far, far less expensive. Banks are getting paid for having a software system. Usually a shiite one. Mt Gox. was the failure of a private company (like a bank) holding people's bitcoins for them. There would be no private company holding your money, it would just be a free system that exists. Crypto currencies by nature are entirely transparent. However, the crypto currency piece isn't essential (just the quickest and easiest way to create a new currency, which can prevent the issue of new currency by anyone other than the state), the fact is that we have to remove the power of banks to create new money. You may be happy with your money in a bank, but that has to be weighed up with the fact that the majority of the people in this country have more debt than savings and every tax payer in this country will be charged again when the next banking crash happens. We will never, and can never pay down the debts of our country without changing the system. It's ludicrous that we've chosen a small group of financial institutions to be entirely free from responsibility in their investments by allowing them to print currency and have that currency backed by the tax payer.

One of the biggest issues I had with the independence campaign, was the lack of discussion on currency (believe it or not). Currency was used as a battering ram by both sides, but never fully debated. The role of banks in our society is a far deeper issue than just a Libor or Exchange fraud too. They control the entire direction of our economy and - subsequently - us. The key is the power to create money. If you control that, then you control the economy. And you control democracy (i.e. we're not a democracy). Over 97% of the money in our system was created by the banks, and there is no required reserve ratio in the UK banking system at present. When you go to get a loan, the bank just creates the money at that point, and gives it to you - contrary to what the economics text books say, which is that banks use savings to fund loans (a blatant lie). What this results in is socialism. For the rich. Our entire banking industry, despite its free market mantra, is a big socialist experiment where the tax payer socialises the risks of the banking industry through bailout and QE. The only thing that can be absolutely certain is that it's not possible to avoid another banking crash. When it'll happen is anyone's guess. Fiat currency is a pyramid scheme, essentially, where regulation is essentially irrelevant. The thing is, do we even need banks? I don't believe so. One of the "radical" ideas that was hugely ignored in the independence debate was the creation of a new currency. It was just dismissed as ridiculous by an ignorant media and repeated by the hordes (a bit like the immigration "issue") without investigation. There was (and is) an opportunity to work in a dual currency system, with an electronic currency (think state bitcoin) created by an independent (from government) Scottish Monetary Committee and only issuable by this committee. As long as taxes are collected in this currency, then it will hold value. Traditional banks for this currency are replaced by servers, as there is no physical item, just a number. Peer to peer and bank lending can continue as normal and banks can choose whether they provide that service or not (i.e. a free market). With no creation of money by banks, then there will never need to be a bailout of that currency (the bailout wasn't a banking bailout per se, more a GBP bailout - we were saving the currency, because the banks created too much of it). Banks would be optional, as they should be. Money exchange would be free - as it should be. In the above system, new money is no longer created as debt, but is spent into the economy. The various political parties present a picture of how they would spend tax receipts, as well as how they would approach the money issuer to request funds to be spent into the economy (created). The people vote for that plan. That would be democracy. Instead we get bluster and lies about "growing the economy" and various other balls that our government - Tory, SNP or Labour - have absolutely fuck all control over.

That'll be an opportunity for the patronising Tim cunts to applaud our youngsters and then congratulate themselves on being the best support in the world.

Well I believe it was staged because somebody said it was. On the internet. I'm going to need pretty conclusive evidence that it wasn't.

Yas min, that's fit politics is all about - being a deceptive cunt. About time there was some proper scandal, the whole thing has been a complete borefest. Any proof?

I'll turn up 5 minutes late as normal. Let me know how it goes.

I'm holding off until the huns get papped oot of the play-off. Just in case we need to do a boycott again when they try and shoe-horn the scum via some rush job on a re-structure.

Indeed. I use this forum as a way to connect with the peasantry without risk of touching - or being touched by - them.

Shite. All this time I've been using saffron...

Yas min, my neighbour appeared in that film.

I don't believe there is a player in our game that gives a shite whether their team makes £100K more for finishing an extra place higher in the league. They want to win because that's what the game is about. Same as I do when I play at sports village or goals. I'm not preventing the issue of win bonuses either, which they may give a crap about because it directly affects them. The "cash for places" is only ever brought out after a team doesn't get the money. For example, the dons missed out on 250K last season by finishing third, but I can guarantee that no player in that team (nor McInnes I expect) gave a shite about the cash - they wanted to finish second. Money talks, perhaps, but there is only one team that would be significantly financially affected by sharing the wealth amongst the other teams - the Tims. If we split the £20M the tims made in prize money alone the season before last (don't have recent seasons figures, but expect it'd be in the teens(£millions)) and split it evenly amongst the teams in the division along with the existing SPFL prize funds, then every other team would be better off from day one and it would instantly make the league stronger. So I'm not convinced it's a case of money talks, more a case of fear of change/risk and a happy as we are mentality.

I'm not suggesting all players get paid the same. I'm suggesting that teams begin the season with a known budget as the league payments are the same for every team. How a team spends that budget (one ace player, ten shite) is up to them. If Aberdeen play well and get good crowds then that boosts their budget, but the extremity of the current system where Celtic get nearly all the revenue that comes into the Scottish game can only be changed by making it fair for everyone and giving everyone the same starting chance.

Aye, that was f'n shocking today like. Stopping the play at the end of the first half was worse than thon chunt (Thompson was it?) a month or so ago. It was calculated, he actually waited until Hayes was through before pulling it back. The red card was f*cked up ina. The linesman waited 2 or 3 seconds before waving his flag roon like a feel. Ruined the last part of that game, Utd were more likely to score when we had 11 (still very unlikely) as we just shut out the entire space. Hopefully the card will be rescinded. I'm nae sure now is the right time for the club to be making a massive deal about it. Either way, you ken some jumped up hun-tim cunt will be making it impossible for us against them in a few weeks.

Wow, really? That really is a sad state of affairs if true. It's a sport, about being the best. It has f*ck all to do with the money. Crowds will improve the better ye play - there's yer money. I love winning when I play fitba, and it has f*ck all to do with money. One of the things I'm slightly concerned about if the huns don't get up any time soon, is that we've just bought two captains of our rivals this season. I dinna want us massively outspending teams around us, that's nae much fun. If we want an equitable and sporting league, with 16 (or even just 12) strong teams, then it's important to get them all to a decent standard. The more equal the league is, the better it will be. We can all improve together for the betterment of the whole league. Split the euro income and I might even support the tims in europe (nae likely!). Not only do the above, but market the shiite out of it. Make it known that we have "the fairest league in the world", and make a big play on the equality and excitement. Talk it up. There's a huge niche there with our neighbours to the south being an embarrassment of plastic wealth. Make our league the antithesis of theirs, and milk it to death. Make Scottish fitba fashionable, and unique. The whole team x wins, team x gets mair cash, team x wins again formula is what drives people away. If we want teams like QOTS in our league, then we need to make them strong. Share the wealth man..

Fit Tubs says. I wrote an article (or rant, more apt) on dons mad saying that if we could have a serious look at our revenue sharing, TV agreements (SPL TV) and move to a 16 team league then I couldnae give a f*ck fit happened to the huns (this was at the time when they were just going to be shoe-horned back into the top flight). To me, 16 teams is progressive and we can easily accommodate it (adding any four of Hertz, Hibs, Huns, Falkirk, QOTS, Raith; even Dunfermline, Livi) and would give us a solid base of good teams. One of the key things for me at the time was the horrendous blackmail we were subjected to as SPL clubs - via Doncaster - warned of the terrible loss of revenue if the hun were not invited straight back into the league. With nothing changed since their departure, we're inviting that blackmail once again. If der scum win the play-offs, then we're back to Killie etc budgeting for them remaining and the crowds that brings. I suggested at the time of their demise that the only way that we can ensure that this situation didn't happen again would be to move to a 16 team league and have us only "relying" on the single visit of Tim/Hun per season. Otherwise, it's a case of sitting back and waiting to see how long it takes for the hun to re-establish themselves in helicopter sunday "excitement". Personally, I'd go further and remove the cash prizes for league placings and split evenly across the division, as well as taking a large percentage of euro prize funds (not gate receipts) back into the league. Last season, I think it was over 70% of the cash coming into our game went to one team. That's not sport.

Fit will be your lasting legacy like? Ye intending blowing up a school? Weird cunt.

Aye in the garage makin shite oot o' wid mainer section C Straight hame to mak the wife supper

Surely the only input to the fixtures that the TV companies would have is look at the draft list and decide which games they'd like to televise and thus move to Sunday (or Friday or Monday etc.)? I'd like to think that they have no sway in organising the fairest distribution of fixtures in our league.

Aye aye mins. Will be whoorin masel atween here and AbMad for a while. Adverts preventing use of dons mad. This place seems pretty cool. I will try not to be a total dick.