Jump to content

harry94

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    3,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by harry94

  1. It's not as firm as that. It's a clause they like to apply which is known as 'sustainable development'. It's usually got some content on regulations of goods (i.e. energy efficiencies of certain items, obviously something which could undermine the efforts from the EU in developing their single market) but on the climate, it's generally nothing that firm. Usually just more of a 'we promise we'll try to be really good' and they make a big announcement trying to triumph it as an agreement on climate change. Not the actual legal text but here is a very brief review of some of the agreements in the Japanese deal. I haven't seen anything that goes far beyond this proposed and we are already pledged to the Paris Agreements and actually been very strong in the process of it coming to fruition, I don't imagine much more than 'the UK and EU pledge to implement the commitments they've already made to....' and not really much ability for recourse if we don;t/ The point is that they haven't 'demanded' anything, if the UK doesn't like what is proposed, they are welcome to go the route of tariffs. The EU will come to the table with their vision of a single market and where we fit in to that and we'll come with our proposal. If Scotland is to be a 21st century prosperous country, we will inevitably have to cede some level of sovereignty to others, just as every country on the earth does. There's nothing that has been suggested that far that is really breaking any new ground or going a step further than trade agreements in the past.
  2. Well yeah, anything sounds outrageous if you don't provide any sort of context. On the environmental policies, this is something that is in place with current FTAs with Canada, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Ukraine etc. It's something that there has been recent demand for in the prospect of a US arrangement (which I think would be unlikely given their stronger negotiating position) and is just a common 21st century arrangement. 'Sustainable development' is a decent and very cheap way to keep on message and pressure to make sure that international cooperation continues. In all, I'm astonished if it would really get anyone knickers in a twist, it probably won't be anything that enforceable anyway. On subsidy, the FTA will allow the UK access of some sort to the single market with goods and services being traded between with some sort of prior agreement on low or non existent tariffs for most of the economy. When implementing an arrangement, what would happen if overnight, the UK bailed out or offered huge incentives to car manufacturers which subsidised them to a level where they had considerable advantage over manufacturers in the EU? Suddenly, companies are going bankrupt and the principles of the single market mean that the German government (for example) couldn't dive in with similar packages. It's common sense and both parties need to have some sort of agreement on state aid and it needs to be enforceable (through the use of some sort of arbitration process) to some degree - as exists with the agreements right now. The UK are stating their interests of having a Canada style arrangement with some bonus points (to try and harness the best of all worlds) and the EU are uncomfortable with giving a competitive advantage away but would not like the economic disruption of the UK leaving its sphere so is looking for a more comprehensive arrangement (more so than previous deals which makes sense given this is totally unprecedented). That's just life and anyone throwing a hissy fit about the 'big bad EU' and being emotive about it really has little credibility. We can only critique our own position which, for now at least, is heavily influenced by a lunatic SPAD who seems to have gained prominence by spouting pseudoscience nonsense in a blog and driven by financing that would be quite happy to see us shrink the size of government to nothing and eliminate workers rights. We've got an absolute shitfest of really vile human beings and nasty fuckers who have rode a wave of populism into office, let's look at our own house first and not get tricked into directing our inevitable anger into the wrong place.
  3. Was our Scottish Cup tie in 2013 on BBC? Pretty sure they shared rights with Sky and we were deffo televised but can't remember what one it was on.
  4. He's a shitfest type player, just there to challenge a few yards in midfield and get the ball passed on very quickly to keep things up the park and as far away from the defence as possible. Think be did that well today. Think we've got to let him play that role consistently to get the best out of him.
  5. 14/15 months of salary left this parliamentary term, that's like £75k of salary left and 6% of that matched into his pension pot. I'm not totally sure but I think he may be entitled to more cash if he tries to stand as an independent, that's the case at Westminster anyway that you get money as a kind of severance pay thing. It's not right at all that he can continue as a representative but for someone who isn't going to be flooded with employment offers in the near future, he's never going to take that decision with his life fucked and there should be a method of taking that out of his hands.
  6. "So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time."
  7. Interview with Farage in the aftermath sums everything up "So, what specific change do you want to see as a result of Brexit" "I want more self confidence........Tony Blair needs to accept our 50p coin because we won.......own laws excitement"
  8. I liked McGinn but you are spot on about his defensive deficiencies at the time and it did cost us, Cammy had a shaky start replacing him but a few months in, he did become really good defensively. It feels like he's regressed a fair bit from those days. I think he was a decent footballer and he was comfortable playing the ball out which is what we missed big time under McCann. A bit surprised he's never evolved into a defensive mid. I know fans love wanting tall athletic guys to play in that position but he has the composure to play there.
  9. There was that season where Raith just thought they could easily postpone a match if they didn't have a 'keeper, that was peak Scottish Football.
  10. Ben Arfa wasn't allowed to sign for Nice once because of that rule, they counted Newcastle's Under 21s as a competitive fixture and it seems pretty stringent. Not really sure how Morton could get him, there's some leeway if you go to a country with different calendars but wouldn't apply in this case. Only thing I can think of is maybe if the Conference North isn't technically an official competition under FIFA for some reason.
  11. 22/40 games from 2019 overall and 29/36 games from 2018 overall. Looks like there is some recent injury, missed the end of last season and start of it.
  12. Nah, Dundee is the complete opposite. We pretty much give our managers free reign to do whatever they want, no matter how crazy and what overspend it brings.
  13. Broke into the Cardiff first 11 in their promotion season when they were playing well but then broke down with more injuries. At MK Dons now with a 1 in 2 scoring record but again missed half the season. He's deffo got some ability and was a decent player but just struggles with his knee.
  14. I liked AJ. Looking back when he played, he was very clever off Moussa and we created a lot (which Moussa missed). Genuinely think it was a successful loan signing for a last minute panic. Would have take him over Miller the season after. I thought Murray was appallingly bad at football when he come in and made us a worse team overall. I wouldn't have minded him as a cheap squad player for his pace and him getting in the box but he could hardly control a football and hold it up for a few seconds.
  15. That's it exactly for me. The thing is, it's all well to invest in a youthful manager but there's got to be a prerequisite knowledge/instinct for someone to actually have the ability to go on and make a good career out of it. Some of McPake's decision making has been scary in how batshit it's been. Hartley for me was the last 'real' manager we had and in fairness to him, he did give us reasons to give him a chance to try and recover when things went wrong but it obviously went too far with the last bad run. I kind of worry we're just going to swing back to an 'experienced heid' again and then when that doesn't work, just appoint Michael Stewart or someone like that. We seem to be stuck in a bit of a cycle. In all honesty, when Nelms makes his next appointment, he shouldn't come out with some big sales pitch. He did it with McIntyre, the shout for experience was flavour of the month with fans and he was desperate to get quotes out that showed him as getting that point and then with McPake, he come out trying to imply he was the main man all along and they had a team of superhuman 'old heids' on stand by to transfuse parts of their brains and mobile contact books in McPake's head. This appointment, he should take as long as he needs with it (if we get knocked back, we start again) and not project his insecurities to the support. If improvement on the pitch comes, he'll be appreciated with that alone rather than some shitty quotations in online Courier articles.
  16. Not saying it's malice - just struggling to see how we've moved on since they came in. The situation they inherited though, we had a massive squad and run a deficit for the year of something like £800k-1 million. That was on top of the couple of seasons before of our promotion post admin running the club very cheaply to get up then our season there also running a deficit overall. It's very easy to envision 'moving on' but the situation we were in, we couldn't have afforded to sign an emergency 'keeper (and as I recall, that's the first piece of business FPS did as we had no one on the bench and literally didn't have the funds to rectify it and afford Dan Twardzik). Clubs who have exited financial difficulty and were in the sort of state we were in are pretty ripe for rogue investors and the likes of Melville etc when we need cash injections etc as no one would lend to us - it's no coincidence that teams who do go into insolvency often do so more than once, it starts a vicious cycle. I've no doubt that if we continued on without FPS involvement, we might possibly have still been successful on the park and saw through that season and even gotten up but we'd possibly have spent the next decade with the same board room confusion and infighting that we've seen before - I'm convinced that we're likely in a better place and even if it has been tough, we have had a 5 year period in the top flight and been able to concentrate on the football. In my lifetime, this is really the only period where we've acted like a proper football club off the park and there's not been any huge worries about the finances or assets being traded away overnight (not that we have any left....). As I recall, the alternative at the time was a Marr led consortium of some sort. I know relations with FPS have sometimes been strained but I do kind of get their apathy to some degree when they arrive here and get called names and obstructed by people offering a few pennies who have fucked up the club massively and, possibly, beyond repair for the next few decades. In all honesty, we needed them to save them from ourselves and put that era to bed.
  17. I mean, they've pumped in an insane amount of money for Scottish Football owners consistently over 7 or so years - I'd imagine more actual cash has come from them than any Dundee owners in history. Their administration has been pish in some regards but I think Keyes has come in good faith and he's done this in an era where he's not been able to tie the club up in liabilities with FPS etc. They've done this to a club with zero assets and nothing to asset strip as well - they could have turned the taps off years ago and just cut their losses but they've even kept it up after our worst footballing and financial disaster in their time. I think they've just arrived here, inherited (well sort of, they appointed him technically but it was Colvin on the ground making the decision) a manager in Paul Hartley who come with a mantra of trying to play football and sign part-timers and in that, it went very very well short-term and he delivered brilliant results with some of his finds. I think from then on, they were maybe a bit sold on this sort of 'project' football and then seemed to think that pouring more money into that would somehow lead to even better results. They've blundered around since then in chasing these ideals. Incompetence isn't malice.
  18. As he wasn't an MSP in 2014 (elected on the Glasgow list in 2016) is this a real post? It's a real post and still exists, it pops up when you google the tweet.
  19. Out of interest, what sort of figures are Ayr in deficit/profit these days?
  20. Rumour was it was an off field issue that ended his time here. He was deffo the best of that bunch.
  21. Caulker was very very good IMO, I don't really know what more was being expected when he gets mentioned in these tbh. He was playing in a calamity of a side (see his defensive partner Meekings in the hammering from St Johnstone and the youth team defender playing in midfield ahead of them). In the run of games post split that kept us up (and further back to that televised draw with Hearts), he was pivotal. He pretty much won everything in the air in his time here. There were obviously issues and it fucked us having to let go of him last minute in the window but I think the signing itself worked out very well for us and probably saved us the misery of relegation a year earlier. We were dealing with a manager who in a relegation must win V Hamilton at home, decides unprovoked to bring on a youth player for their senior debut in central defence to see the game out - I'm pretty sure we'd have gotten relegated without the contribution of Caulker.
  22. In the first league game, I thought Mendy looked like he could be a bit of a nuisance with his pace in behind. Caulker spent the whole game just punting the ball over the top and whilst we were dreadful that season, it maybe was a bit of a fluke that we lost the first game. After that though he spent his rest of his time on the pitch with his back to goal on the half way line. I know we've had some poor business over the years but tactically, we've been absolutely appalling at getting the best out of players for years.
  23. So paused until deadline day when Hearts get desperate enough to pay him off.
  24. Personally I think that's quite harsh from the few games we saw. He was deffo quite raw but I think he added quite a bit I thought and when he come in, we were getting points on the board. He had a poor game against Hearts at Dens but there weren't any games where I thought he was particularly bad apart from that - those 4 games we got points in he was crucial to and had good performances. He was exiled for that Celtic game and dropped whilst we absolutely fell from lowr mid table form in his half a round of fixtures to zero points until we were relegated. Rumours at the time were he was suspended by the club for whatever reason.
×
×
  • Create New...