Buddist Monk

If I had to guess, I'd expect it to be the low end of £2m with Allan on top, so say... £2.3m with some extra bits added on for performance? Whereas you'd be expecting the mid 3's at least if he was to pop on down South. Certainly if he was to get involved in a little bidding war, that could easily double.

The slight fly in the ointment is that Celtic will (probably) be using Allan as part of the deal, thus reducing the actual money involved and presumably the money we get. Still, it's better for us than him leaving for nothing and moving on a PCA.

You are using a false dichotomy there, bud, just because my points are valid (and they are) it doesn't mean I've dismissed yours. We are a parochial nation and fall into easy stereotypes for our cousins to the South. The "whatabootery" argument is a tad irrelevant though.

So is Stokes officially off the list then, or is he going to train with us when we're back? As for the striker, I quite liked Bilate when he was at United. Far from the finished article and he wasn't playing for us so I never really noticed him that much.

It's not because Butcher is English that's the problem, it was a problem when Burley appointed him assistant manager and he spent the time complaining about Maradona rather than his actual fucking job but it's not a problem with him commenting on England. No, the problem with Butcher is his bolshy and petulant world view, laced with incredible ignorance.

I'm sure the irony is not lost on all of us as the SFA/SPFL (in their relevant guises) have sold our game short for over a decade. Thing is, if you wanted me to pay the licence for the radio, I would. I could live without the TV section of the BBC. It has it's odd gems but in general it's 95% utter mince. The problem being the government think that anything that _can_ receive BBC TV (so essentially everything connected online) must be covered by a licence. A really fucking shit way to do things and in the end will only harm the BBC.

It's completely pointless idiots like Neville, Jenas, Murphy and Keown that get me. Keown can on (the rare) occasion be magnanimous, but the rest (and despite them clearly having a lot of experience in the game) are there to offer empty platitudes that offer nothing. Just remember that we pay our licence fee so these c***s can be paid a kings ransom (and likely more than most earn in a year) to parrot out tired old stereotypes while adding little of value.

I tend to try and synch the radio and TV, for one simple reason. Radio commentators need to take time to describe what's happening rather than just making blank observations. This reduces the amount of time for something stupid to be said. Doesn't stop it but does reduce it, imo.

Scottish annoyance is reactionary though not proactive, where English contrivance is entirely that; premeditated contrivance. It's made worse by the fact that this is not England yet the broadcasters (even the Scottish ones) seem unable to recognise that. I understand when commentators say "we" but that's bad commentating, instead it's just the same as some lad in the stands giving it laldy. What's more the key idiots, like Butcher and Hoddle (the latter shouldn't even be on mainstream media due to his fucked up worldview) are so dismissive and they are so ignorant over the most basic of things. While you will find bias in the way Scots report either England or Scotland, it's laced with traditional self deprecation and a considerable reduction in general ignorance.

Speak to any German and very few consider England any great rivalry. Brazil, Italy, even the Netherlands, they all count as a rivalry while the English to the Germans are a side show. In England though, they are still so rooted to the past they will print pictures of players in WW2 helmets. The coverage of the WC has been shameful up until now, everything has to have an English slant, and I mean fucking everything. That combined with the utterly partisan Hoddle, Butcher and co and it's like one giant contrived circle jerk. It's as if the BBC forget the first B is for British, and as for STV they are a Scottish franchise and have no excuse but are happy to broadcast the pitiful content pushed up from London. I am a nationalist, but I am fairly reasonable about it, accepting that a lot we find annoying is not from intent, but it's also true the English can spend hours flipping between self flagellation and auto fellatio to the point it becomes utterly tedious.

This has popped up on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44637344

I honestly don't know why I called him that... *shrug* Anyway, my question is still valid, was he a main player in the 9 in a row nonsense?

Sure, but it was more the comparison between physical and virtual media. Totally get that. When I am in a location that I have no internet connection or it's iffy then I tend to buy the I (as in the tabloid Independent) which these days is pretty much just a distillation of their online content. The Metro is one to watch in regard to the DM. The Metro is free and has a brilliant distribution network, however they write none of their own pieces and instead aggregate others' content. One of those aggregators is the DM, and it's notable that many DM *autistic_screeching* clickbait right wing bullshit project fear bullshit is transferred verbatim. You'll forgive me for not knowing, and I mean this as no slight on Cleland but how big a part did he play in the 9 in a row? That said, you are totally correct, it's a shameless attempt to fit in an OF connection.

The problem is that the lazy amongst the profession seem to have confused people's opinion with news. Just because a random of Castlemilk says something, it doesn't make it the basis of a story, nor is it source that the story being pushed is relevant.

You are using way too broad a brush. While there are numerous great journalists out there, delivering their content over many platforms, the journalism we are discussing here is a victim of it's own shittiness. The propensity to do a lazy and cack-handed job was a precursor to clickbait. They have embraced it now, sure, but the standards had started to drop before the Internet became a mainstream source.

Do you pay for them? As for the website, you'll be in a minority. The usage of media websites in comparison with sales shows people are leaving the physical print medium behind.

I don't mind the inclusion of teams from other FAs, it harks back to the old Texaco cup, but I understand why people don't like the idea. Sorry for my ignorance on this, but what is our colt team made up of? U18s, U21s?

On another note, I see we've entered a colt team (oo-er, missus) into the Challenge Cup, ironically drawing another colt team (Killie) in the first round. Now I was against colt teams in this competition when we were full time participants so I'm conflicted regarding our participation this season. What are everyone else's views on this?

As most can imagine, Stokes not turning up is just grist for my mill, however even though I have a pretty dim view of the chap I don't believe he just never turned up without telling anyone. He might have completely dingied it, but I'm more of a mind that he spoke to Stubbs and said he was waiting on something or other and wouldn't immediately join up with the team. Perhaps Stubbs laid out the wages and starting opportunities and they mutually agreed that a deal wasn't to be done. Either way, and even though it's clear Stokes is his own worst enemy (well him and Elvis), I think it's unlikely absolutely no contact has been made between him and the club.

So, out of interest, does anyone still buy a paper? And if so what one? I'd imagine most of us have moved over to reading their respective websites, which is better as it means far less money for the complete lies and conjecture that get spread. The Metro I'm guessing is probably the most read purely for it's price and distribution, however you should be careful about the Metro. It's a trojan horse in that it's just the Daily Mail in a different guise, and we know how loathsome, petty and downright hateful the Daily Mail is.

You'll find him under the sign, "excess baggage".

I said at the time that it all depends on whether Sunderland have bottomed out or if there is another crash waiting for them. If it's the former then it could turn out to be a very shrewd bit of business, as their potential is easily top half of the English Premiership (not saying that's where Ross will get them). If however they turn out like Blackburn who literally couldn't stop shooting themselves in the foot time after time for about 3 years solid, then he'll be struggling to get them back into the Championship. Either way, and without a single penny of investment, that squad is easily capable of winning League One.

Yeah, he's going to be gutted earning so much money and having the opportunity to manage such a large club. He was even on the radio the other day saying he doesn't care what budget he has, and that part of the challenge is to get the best out of what is currently there. Obviously I would have preferred him to stay with us, and there is clearly a financial hangover from dropping 2 divisions, but I'd not go so far as to suggest he's an absolute fanny for joining them.

I've given you a green dot not because I am concerned about his DoB, but because it looks like you put a bit of effort into that.

It was more that people seemed keen to dismiss Miller as definitely going to cause problems in the squad, yet that concern seems lessened with Stokes. I wasn't really aiming for a 'like for like' comparison. FWIW, just hypothetically, if it was a 'like for like' I'm not sure which would end up scoring more goals for us. Miller has, as you say, injuries catching up with him. Stokes, I'd suggest would be missing for other reasons. You'd expect both to dip into the double figures over a season.