RicoS321

Nope, the Guardian merely presented the data in a consistent graphed format. The actual report presents the data in graph format too (see link, final pages). It, however, uses a ridiculous mash up of different graph styles, often in 3D, which makes even more of a mockery of the data (some fuckwit given carte blanche in excel - no wonder the report took so long). I don't know what's worse, the findings or the presentation... http://downloads.bbci.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/dame_janet_smith_review/savile/jimmy_savile_investigation.pdf

Thinking about it, McInnes will take him back in midfield, move Shinnie to right back and bring in Considine at left back. Think I would play Jack at right back personally, might give him a psychological kick up the airse to show that he has to take one for the team, as well as avoid fucking about with the personnel too much.

Fuck me, they've got fucking graphs. Fuck sake. Is this so a CEO can have an "at a glance" paedophelia dashboard? How fucking crass, who thought this was an acceptable way to present the findings? http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/25/serious-failings-bbc-jimmy-savile-abuse-72-woman-children-report Victims by program? Jesus.

Good use of capitals. It really is everything. It's like there are two separate realities; one manufactured. There are so many examples too, it's staggering: Monetary policy: We own Sterling, our national debt is not actually a debt (other than foreign currency debt), it's an arbitrary balance between the treasury and the publicly owned BOE. Why is not the base point for discussion in all economic reporting/debating? Why is not even mentioned in economic textbooks (my wife has an economics degree, I've read the majority of her textbooks, monetary policy - or, where does money come from - played no part)? Austerity: If you have £1,000 (sterling) in circulation and £500 is public debt (teasury to the BOE) and £500 is private debt, then reduction in public debt (austerity) means a greater private debt. Why is this not discussed? Bank debt vs personal debt: When a person puts there money in a bank, the bank then owns that cash and is replaced with an IOU from the bank to the person. When a person goes into a bank for a loan, the bank simply writes an IOU from the person to the bank and accounts for that IOU as an asset on their balance sheet. There is no connection between depositor and lender. Why do the vast majority of people assume that their savings are used by banks as funds to loan to other people? Why is economics taught this way at University? Why is not in the media everyday as the basis for any economic discussion? And that's just on monetary and economic policy; where a whole separate system is presented as truth that bears no resemblance to actual truth, by every single news outlet. It doesn't even get into QE, or the level of non-productive investment or the requirement for banks to even exist in a progressive modern society - something that even banks are recognising. The connection between food production, advertising and health is literally ignored. The fact that UN reports indicate that we have about 60 harvests left of topsoil. That capitalism/profit isn't compatible with food production or sale - the two directly conflict. Automation, virtually ignored, other than for the purpose of scaremongering. The notion that a person will soon be able to own a technology that requires no human input to provide its output, meaning that ownership (i.e. whoever can afford it at the time) of a copyright (idea) will soon be able to be enough to provide a person with a lifetime return by doing nothing and providing no employment (I realise we're already there in some cases). The stock answer to automation is: we'll think of new jobs for everyone, we always have done (I could be assistant PR supervisor for Apple Aberdeen's automated transport division), regardless of how fucking stupid and not-required said jobs are. Why is there no discussion on the best way for humans to harness automation for the benefit of all at the lowest possible cost? And then there are the paedos, the lobbyists, the psychopaths etc. Not even discussed. Health, and the ownership of drugs. Not even discussed. Sport, and the fact that it no longer exists: money = win. Not discussed. I generally turn on the Radio (Scotland, or whatever), listen to the news and pretty much every story has a huge gap in the discussion - like an agreed set of boundaries. Channel 4 news is pretty good, but still seems to be unwilling to challenge the current system (other than Paul Mason in economics, and Alex Thomson in hun-based news). But as you say Rocket, karma will see to the cunts in the end. Probably the rest of us too (cunts like me, who partake in the system for instance) mind you.

The key is who replaces Logan. Wonder if Jack might play there as a one off given it's just a suspension and it's arguably a less physical roll than centre mid (although not the way Logan plays it).

Templeton was just like Pawlett and every other young player (Fraser, Gauld etc). Storms on to the scene and catches the eye, but once defenders work out how to play them quickly fade into obscurity. Doesn't even get a game for der hun, and certainly isn't superior to Pawlett - pretty much the same I'd say. Also, I'm not convinced that a player who moved down to the bottom tier of Scottish fitba to further his career is someone we should have anywhere near our club.

It would have taken a very good signing in January to replace Hayes. Put another way, we didn't lose anyone (outfield) of any note in January that wasn't replaced. I think the damage was done in the summer with the failure of Parker, McLauchlan, Quinn (relatively) and the prior re-signing of Goodwillie. In January, you're really only expecting a couple of signings maximum due to contract situations. The Tansey thing fucked us over on making two signings. However, I don't think Church was a good enough target. He strikes me as a slightly better Parker, taken in on a whim because he was available rather than because we scouted regularly and identified him. It was obvious a few months ago that Goodwillie wasn't the answer, and I really think we should have had 4-5 replacement targets ready, with a budget available for a fee if required. Perhaps we did, but couldn't secure any of them. I suspect even Tansey was 4th or 5th on our list, and probably only came up after others were ruled out as unavailable. In short, January is probably a difficult window to bring players in, despite our previous successes signing known quantities in Reynolds and Rooney. I reckon Logan was a lucky signing if I'm honest - a punt, like Church, that actually went right for us. I think we were right just to focus on a single midfielder and a striker - we only have limited scouting resource - and take a risk on both defence and goalkeeper. I think we were a touch unlucky not to get our preferred targets. I think that perhaps we need to be ruthless in the summer with regard to Smith and Pawlett and bring in a player that really challenges our first 11 (if neither performs when Hayes is out), something I suspect we didn't have the time or inclination to do in January.

I know what Tyrant means though, one of the few songs I did hear from the mainer earlier in the season was something about Darren Mackie - hilarious. Loons enjoying themselves though, so fair play. Hopefully they'll be joined by a lot more folk next season.

This exact scenario was suggested to the club on several occasions. It seems strange they're now forwarding it as their own idea. Anyway, it makes sense. Family section next to the tunnel and back, probably enough seats in that side and along the front to keep the kids away from the away end (although 99% of the time that won't be an issue). Giving the whole Merkland up for those that wish to jump around and wave flags and so forth is a good idea, especially if they unofficially allow them to stand. From where I sit in the mainer, it's very difficult to hear any singing from the current singing section in the RDU. In the Merkland, it may just be close enough to get the rest of the ground joining in a bit more.

Yep, possibly, although he does make some very good runs into space in the box, and off the ball generally. It's mainly when he's got the ball that his head goes down and he charges. That's why I suggested a few simple instructions for him during the game and focus on doing a couple of things consistently and well would be a good start for him. Play him high enough up the pitch so that any mistakes should mean plenty of cover.

I didn't think he did run about a lot against ICT, I think that's why we missed Hayes so much. It'd be interesting to see the stats regarding metres covered as I thought Pawlett's must have been poor on Monday. Whilst McGinn had a shite game, he was at least tracking back (something he rarely gets credit for, but his position requires a lot of). Interesting to see Church's stats too, as I thought he was laboured and didn't do enough work. In Pawlett's defence, he made some great runs into the box and only on one occasion was it spotted and McLean over-hit the pass slightly. I think he has a lot to offer in that department, but McInnes needs to spend the time on him individually to explain what he wants him to do during a game. He looked devoid of instruction on Monday night. Perhaps he just didn't do as he was told of course, but I think he needs a basic set of instructions drummed into him to get the most out of his obvious attributes. One thing he does well, is plays the pass in front of the player so that they can run on to it as he would expect himself. He's a fantastic player to have on the break, which is possibly why he struggles when teams sit in a bit as seems to be the fashion in football these days.

We really had to hope that Hayes stayed fit for the remainder of the season, he's irreplaceable for us. We don't have another player that covers the amount of ground that he does and creates so many opportunities consistently. McGinn is class, but inconsistent. O'Halloran would have been the ideal signing for us to battle it out with Hayes and McGinn. Unfortunately the lure of 1st division fitba was always going to be too much for us. I think Church was always an unknown gamble, possibly because we didn't get our other targets. I'd have been happy to get a decent striker and a midfielder in January and taken a gamble on not replacing Quinn. Unfortunately, we seem to have signed another Josh Parker. Having seen the Taylor incident again, I was being generous! Although, I don't think we should ignore the poor midfield covering by Storie, who should have pulled across to prevent the run, it was fucking awful by Taylor. I've been critical of Taylor since he joined, but I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he seems to have more good games than bad. He's worse on the ball than Langfield and prone to the odd mistake that the majority of defenders just wouldn't make. He's always reminded me of Diamond. Like Diamond in his second or third season for us, the worst thing to note about Taylor, I think is, this is him at his peak. You can tell by his game awareness and general ability that he isn't going to get any better. There's no room for improvement and no areas of his game that will improve with age (he's not suddenly going to learn how to pass). I think he's been okay this season, but it'll be interesting to see how long he can maintain this level.

Also, they mentioned on Red TV that the penalty was for high feet. Not that Taylor's foot was higher than Draper's anyway, but high given that it wasn't dangerous as both players were going for the ball, it should have only been an indirect free kick. I hope there's a complaint made by the club, as there's no other ref in the world would have given that decision. He looks for things that aren't there. Actually thought Ash was unlucky for the first. Storie and Mclean let the runner go and Taylor did well to read it, but he seemed to run past the ball. Perhaps the ball held up slightly, although it looked like he just forgot to take the ball with him. I thought Reynolds was pap too tonight.

That's some pretty awful refereeing. Bordering on cheating. Although Collum does it pretty much constantly. He shouldn't be reffing a game of football. There must be some corruption going on at the SFA - this was a ref that was sent down a division for being wank, who's now seen as the best in the country. That said, we were awful. My point regarding McInnes's subs in another thread highlighted perfectly tonight. Church should have been off ten minutes before he was binned, yet we wait until we're two down before making the sub. An earlier switch may just have upset the balance of the game and prevented the third. Shoe on the other foot and Smith would have been off around half time. Thought Pawlett was poor, would be interested to see distance covered stats as don't think he did nearly enough. McGinn was just playing pish. Shinnie and Logan decent.

It made me smile. Wish I was in Toulouse to witness it. Although I suspect, given the lack of preparation, it might just be rocket on his own. Hopefully someone videos it, as it'll be class.

Of those 65 non-starts, it'd be interesting to see how many were less than 15 minutes. I suspect the vast majority. And of those 20 starts, it'd be interesting to see how many of those he finished. My point was that if Smith started a game and was playing badly, he'd get taken off early. As opposed to McGinn (just an example, I really like McGinn) having a bad game - he'd be given >75 minutes to try and turn it around. I think that must put additional pressure on Smith (and Pawlett) as he knows he's not the preferred choice. There's been plenty of games where we've not looked like doing anything, yet poorly performing (by their own high standards) players have been given a lot of time to turn it around, often to no avail. McInnes makes very late subs regularly to the extent that it's difficult to describe many of the appearances as opportunities.

I was being facetious. I agree. I never thought Shankland was good enough and don't think he'll make the grade (although he could come good in his later years as a target man). I'd like to have seen Smith given more game time and perhaps a run of games though, but we've just never been shite enough or good enough to allow it. One thing I found interesting about the weekend game though was how quickly Smith and Pawlett were subbed. McGinn and Storie were given a full 30 minutes. It's rare that we see that opportunity afforded to Smith or Pawlett. McInnes clearly has his preferred team. What I mean is, I've watched McGinn and McLean (as an example) have poor games and not be involved in the play at all, yet they've generally been given 75+ minutes as standard before a sub is made. It seems like they have to do a lot more wrong in order to be subbed. I would think that both Smith and Pawlett are aware of the pressure on them to grasp any chance given, and I suspect both will move on in the summer.

Ahh, but then we were the bogey team (I'm sure we beat somebody more than once in that era, although I can't think who), because we were pish.

You can only have one bogey team. Those are the rules.

He's fuckin ace. I'd have asked him about his inability to make subs early in a game and trust in youth like....

I thought St Johnstone were our bogey team?

Looks a decent player like, would have him at the dons.

He's a distraction; he won't win anything. Rubio's the one to watch out for. He's this election's Obama. Relatively clean, not much said about him, but with lots and lots of money behind him. I can see him quietly winning the republican race and then the election. Think Sanders will challenge Hillary all the way, to the extent that a lot of his disappointed supporters will not bother voting for Hillary when the actual vote comes around resulting in the Republicans winning. In the interests of keeping the republicans out (if that's a valid interest anymore), I'd rather Trump won the Republican election. The democrats would turn out in force to vote against his election, and the big Republican money (and brains) would stay well clear of Trump meaning he wouldn't benefit from the list purges and general rigging that'd go on if Rubio or Cruz won. I have no problem with Trump to be honest. It's more interesting to watch what he doesn't say than what he does.

Rangers get drawn at home. Then the re-draw draws Rangers at home. That's 8 from their last 8 Scottish cup ties at home (including the mis-draw). Aye, but prior to that they played Utd away they'll say. A real tough draw. That game, of course, was played at a neutral ground. Of course, with Hampden being re-developed, there was only one possible neutral venue for that game. Ibrox. Rangers have been drawn 9 times out of their last 9 to play at Ibrox. At a time when they're struggling for cash and need the most number of home games possible.

Big game like, the fermers have a great record against us. Be interesting to see what team McInnes goes for. For all our success on Wednesday night, I'm not sure the Church, Rooney set-up worked. If he played a 4-4-2 then that'd be fine, but Rooney wide right just nullifies his game. He didn't really get into it until after Church went off and he moved central. So it's a decision of whether we play Rooney or Church for me, or a 4-4-2 with both of them. Whilst I thought Church worked hard against the Tims, I wasn't 100% convinced. I'd go for Rooney up front tomorrow (Church coming on earlier than our normal subs if possible), with Hayes left, McGinn right and Pawlett in behind. I expect him to go unchanged though.