RicoS321

McKenna getting a tanking from Shankland. Have to admit, I wasn't massively convinced by McKenna or Shankland when I saw either of them play for the dons. Neither have looked particularly good today.

Jack mentioned his celebration in his interview on youtube. Apparently you had to be in Dubai to understand it. Luckily he doesn't have to use it often. The big point regarding this thread - 5 in a row - is whether or not we'll play the same team against the Tim. Surely Deek must realise his errors against the cheeks the last time out and play to our strengths. Why change a winning team, etc. I can see him bottling it (and it is bottling it) and shoe-horning O'Connor in there somehow. Hopefully he'll take note of Dundee's performance yesterday, which showed how difficult it is to change your mindset half way through a game and attack when yer already chasing it. One plus point is that Christie will be unavailable so we won't have to dick about trying to get him in the team (not suggesting he's pish, just that Deek does like a fuck about from time to time).

But surely that risk is being massively overstated by Deek? There are plenty of games where we've been comfortable but the youngsters haven't featured. Comfortable in the sense that if we took on one young player for one player that is perhaps tiring or just not having a great game that our airses wouldn't collapse and we end up losing the game. We have raised our standard to the extent that we're good enough to carry a young loon if required.

12,500. 20,000 if we play it in Westhill.

You could be right like, Hector would back up yer point, but McKenna would go against it. I don't think it's anything particular to England is what I'm saying, more to do with a player's general physical growth and the time they come through into the team. Given they're playing in a league where the players are significantly more athletic than those up here, it is to be expected that those who have managed to break into the team are of requisite strength, it's all relative. In other words, if yer average youngster is 30% less muscular than a senior player up here, it's probably a similar ratio down there. I'm not an avid Match of the day watcher, but I've seen it enough to have heard them talk of young players just needing to improve the physical side of their game to make them the next big thing. The main point being though, that it's something that's easy to work on once the player has fully developed, as opposed to skills and that a lot of it has to do with confidence. Having played a few times at a shite level myself you often tend to be hunner mile an hour and unsure of tackling until you settle in and get yer first few boots up in the air. Each level is a new learning experience too, so it may take players a good few hundred minutes (15-20 decent length sub appearances) of game time to get used to the pace and physical side of a game in the first team. We should be looking to provide that experience before judging, and I can think of about 10 games this season where that would have been possible.

Really? Maddison? I just don't buy this. Nor do I buy that there's an issue with toughness and mental strength that can't be overcome quickly and easily with more game time. Players gain confidence and strength the more they play. Storie didn't exactly lack mental and physical strength when he played against the tims at Pittodrie, he slotted straight in, but it was clear he needed much more opportunity to play in order to develop. As it stands, he's regressed through lack of opportuntity, and we've probably set him back another couple of years and I doubt he'll make it with us. I'm not suggesting we start youngsters, but regularly giving them 20 minutes isn't beyond a club of our standing. We have a good first 11 that could easily guide a youngster through 20 minutes here and there.

It would make a fucking ace wall. Much better than Trump's shite.

He said that? Jesus, that's worrying. I understand his position, but there is another side to that. Guys like Wright, Ross, McKenna, Storie etc definitely have a lot of positives to their game, if we can develop those by giving them game time then that will surely take them to the next level? Also, it is worrying that we can't give Wright a chance in the last twenty minutes in games for fear that we might capitulate. Surely it can't be worse than being a man down, or even just a McGinn/McLean/Shinnie not firing? I'm singling out Wright, because he plays in a position where it is generally easier to give a player a shot as it is not as critical defensively. As an aside, I think Ross looks like he might be a player. Looks like he's got all the attributes bar the physical strength, which can be built on.

That's fucking nuts. Who puts their bed in such a ridiculous position?

But he's clearly corrupt as fuck himself. Channel 4 making a deal of his links with Goldman Sachs (via his appointments) - obviously that would never have happened under Clinton, but that doesn't mean Trump isn't at it. Similarly, his bollocks about investigating election fraud, which is clearly a continuation of/opportunity to further the corrupt GOP's hammering of the poor and ethnic minorities to ensure that their votes don't count. A practice that was funded by the non-establishment Koch billionaires on Trump's behalf in this past election, winning him some key states. He's a corrupt fuck, and that he his completely correct in his criticism of the press, completely correct in his attacks on the establishment, that doesn't make him any less likely to use that to his advantage whilst not doing anything to prevent those in power taking from those not. He's a product of 20 years of political bankruptcy. Of failure to ask questions and the dumbing down of discussion. Here's a good piece from Pilger: http://johnpilger.com/articles/this-week-the-issue-is-not-trump-it-is-ourselves-

Literally. It seems a poor statement by Plymouth. We don't want rapists at our club would have been a far better statement. If he'd served his time, showed remorse, I'd be more inclined to suggest he deserved a second chance. I was uncomfortable when we signed him, because he was clearly a rapist who got away with it, I didn't think it sent out a great message to our female supporters. It was a very avoidable situation for us.

Great point. I think he's cover for McLean, or sub to come on for Considine leaving Jack in the holding role with Christie and McLean in front if we're struggling to break teams down. Similar to what Maddison was doing from the bench more recently. Our best form has been with Shinnie in midfield alongside Jack at the start of the season and just before the break, so I don't see that being disrupted. If Christie turns out to be better (than I expect anyway) then he'll probably just take the place of McLean, with perhaps McLean moving out wide if McGinn our Hayes get injured or off form. He certainly provides cover that we need more than the Tims. I'm with Dolly about being uncomfortable with loan signings in the same league. However, if anything, it's in the Tims' best interests to have the huns return straight to second. The bigot duopoly is perfect for their business. I do understand the loan from Deek's point of view though, it's pragmatic and easy. It'll be interesting to see how the fans take to him.

I'm not sure how it helps us to develop and improve a Scottish player (nor am I sure why it matters that he's Scottish) only for him to return to a rival. I don't think anyone really gives a fuck about the tweet. I also don't think he's that good. He's not as good as Maddison, and he's definitely not better than McLean either. I dinna think he'll be in McInnes's thinking to replace Shinnie in midfield, more likely he may come on in games if we're struggling to break teams down, then move Shinnie to left back rather than him starting there. But he's certainly nae shite either, so he'll get a decent amount of game time. If we were struggling for other options in what is a difficult window, then it's nae a bad move. Pragmatic given Celtic's 20 point gap too, rather than inspired.

I was joking, I didn't realise he'd actually signed. I'm much too chilled out to boo a dons player. It's nae his fault the dons are meekly going cap in hand to a bunch of weegie fucks. It does a feel a bit weird like. But then it was absolutely fine for Pawlett to go to Saints and Machoir to Killie, so I suppose it's no different. Fuck it, if he gets us second place then he's got my backing.

Dinna spik shite min. How are you going to boo the tim cunt if you dinna turn up?

Ceta. It's probably about the same as TTIP. Investor Dispute Settlement being the key to its anti-democractic fucked-upedness. I suspect it'll be dead too, because the Europeans will stop it (not including the UK) but with a worse replacement in line once Brexit occurs.

Whilst I dislike the idea of Christie coming here, I think he has played a handful of times this season and there was one game I think he played quite well in. If we've got a defined option to buy him (subject to his agreement obviously) at the end of the deal then I have no problem with it. If we're just training a guy up to return to a rival, I don't like it (I don't actually like us breeding guys like Maddison etc ahead of our own, but I understand it). Even though I am pretty much resigned to the fact that the Tims are no longer our rivals, but a team in a league of their own that sit comfortably above the rest due to massive financial superiority. Shinnie is an interesting one. He's performed a good partnership with Jack in the middle, to the extent that they are really our only viable option in there at present unless we're playing at home and want to release another midfielder into the attack (that does seem to congest the attack though, illustrated by Pawlett coming on against Stranraer). Shinnie is an intelligent player who allows Jack to push forward and knows when to hold his position. If he's keen to play there and not keen to play left back then we need to make it pretty clear from this window on that he's playing that role and get someone in to address the left back spot. We also need another midfielder in to challenge him and Jack for that spot and that will determine if he really is good enough for centre mid (I suspect he is). Is Easton that left back? I'm not convinced. Strong defensively and a decentish crosser when he gets into position, but slow when up against a quick player. He's basically Considine. If we get him, then it's a straight choice between Considine and Reynolds at centre half, with one leaving in the summer. I'd prefer a quicker left back so we can go kamikaze at the opposition, but at the same time I see the benefits of the lop-sided strong tackling defender at left back giving space for a good winger (Hayes in our case) to stretch his legs in front of him. May would be good. Direct competition for Rooney only though. None of this "he can play out wide too" pish.

Thon looks fine like. Would have to replace the beef with something different for the wife like. Perhaps Turkey or some such. Or nuts.

Given I plucked the 18K out of the air for sake of argument (if it was read from here, which I doubt), I doubt anyone will vote for it. I wouldn't even vote for it. Why would anyone vote for a stadium without drawings that could be unfeasible and isn't being proposed over one with drawings that is fully designed and in for planning? If we were presented with and 18K design in the existing site, that'd be an entirely different story obviously. The argument from me is we're not seeing evidence. I want to see the diagram of the 12.5K (out of interest, do any of the qualified folks think it would be possible to return an accurate figure without a diagram?), what assumptions were used for things like moving the mainer toward the car park and the maximum possible height of the South stand allowed so as not to block light out from the flats (and any possible mitigations of that - glass/perspex in part or whatever). I want to see that the club made every possible effort to remain at Pittodrie and give the fans a choice and that there was no pre-conceived agenda and a consultation with a pre-determined outcome. As Slim says, there was a 600K consultation (I thought it was 400K, but I think he's right). All I remember seeing from this was a series of bullet points.

I'm the opposite. See if some fucker puts chocolate in my fruit scone or rock cake, they get a punch in the dick. As an aside, I ken it wasn't the point you were making, but the whole chocolate thing has got out of hand these days. Chocolate on athin, it's rank. Chocolate is unacceptable on the following, it just doesn't go: The above scone or rock cake flapjacks cheesecake Thon yoghurt bar things Any form of energy bar thing Any fruit (apart from maybe cherries, which I don't like anyway)

Fuck the new guff cunts.

Is it Michelle McManus (with emphasis on the anus)? If so, I heard her on radio Scotland th'ither wik. Just happened to turn it on and despite the pish music, I wasn't totally offended by her presenting so that's an achievement (nae for her obviously, who widnae gie a fuck).

Onions are fucking magic. Try whacking them in a soup and cook them less and less each time (feel free to blend the soup). That'll wean you onto them. It's mushrooms for me. I always try and like them, and I'll eat them if there on my plate (as I've never not finished a meal in living memory), but I just think they're cunts.

I'm worried in case it comes true.

The series is on Amazon I think. Was considering watching it, but I was too freaked out by the title.