Thinker

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Men's_Country_coefficient and... It's so you know what you're playing for, right from the start of the season.

The blurb at the top of this list explains it: https://www.footballseeding.com/country-ranking/a2019-2020/ Next season we still have the normal Champions League and Europa League. The enhanced ranking kicks in the following year when the conference league kicks off.

This is a good one too: https://www.footballseeding.com/

Not had chance to rewatch it in highlights yet, but though the shot was close to him and in the centre of the goal, I thought he was unsighted.

Too many players thniking about Thursday night I suspect - which is exactly the kind of attitude we need to cut out if we want to keep the challenge rolling. We got away with it today. Obviously, it's good to get the win, but that was not enjoyable at all.

If the board are okay with spending this amount of money on Kent, I wish they'd done it last week. Kent could have made a big difference if he'd played yesterday.

Good to see the review coming down on the side of what's clearly right, and not the legalese bullshit "seperate entity" attempt to avoid moral duty. Hopefully this will carry some weight in the victims' quest for justice. Seems like it ought to.

It's worth bearing in mind SG's explanation that Ojo didn't train last week and played last night with bone bruising. You can't expect his best performance under those conditions. I do miss Candieas though. Having both him and Ojo available for selection would be ideal for the squad.

Personally, I don't get involved in any of this kind of stuff, but to summarise the situation: We know that UEFA have been convinced (by FARE or Lawell or whoever) that ****** is a sectarian term and have made its use punishable. Despite the fact that hun is considered a sectarian term by the police in Northern Ireland, nobody has successfully convinced UEFA to add it to their list. The upshot of this is that the green brigade could hold up a banner that read: "We are the ****** army, and we say kill all huns" and nothing would be done, whereas if the Union Bears held up a banner reading: "We object to being called huns, and we say fuck the ****** army" we'd be penalised for it. As others have said, the chances of UEFA reversing their decision on the word "******" is absolutely zero. There's no point in continuning to test this by singing - it will inevitably result in Rangers being fined and supporters being banned. The only move left for us to make is (imho) to take them down too, by campaigning for parity so that the word "hun" is similarly prohibited. If opposing fans start receiving sanctions for goading us, the basis of the whole "whatabout what they get away with" argument is gone. We need to do this before the SFA bring in their own liability rules that are "in line with UEFA's".

They'll be frantically checking the oppostition team sheet for ineligible players as we speak!

... and the wet pitch. I know I'm probably being especially uncharitable, but in normal conditions the pace on that pass would have seen it run straight through to Greegs. I suppose I should give Allan the benefit of the doubt and assume he anticipated that the surface water would slow the ball. But I don't like Allan, so I'm going to put it down to luck.

He put in an excellent preformance against Cardiff at the weekend. Set one up, won a penalty (then missed it, admittedly) and scored a beauty.

They've also had some shockers. They had a good run in the 2016/17 Europa league, but last year they were knocked out by Dudelange (Lux) and, the year before, Sherriff Tiraspol (Moldova).

Beautiful.

The SFA should hire whoever negotiated the Danish Superliga's deal! That's incredible for a country of 5.7 million.

That's true you're not. The club chairman is requesting you don't sing certain songs because it gives the shrill press and politicians an easy opportunity to leverage public opinion against us. Our enemies want you to keep singing these songs. They're seeking an opportunity to hamper the club's progress so why comply? Yes, football it is too sanitised, I agree, but that's how it is. As always, we have to deal with the reality of the situation.

Strawman nonsense. There's no way they could legitimately punish us for either of those songs. Public opinion would be on our side - especially given the songbook across the city, or even historical battle references sung about at Scotland matches. Obviously plastic pitches have fuck all to do with what we're talking about.

Hmmmm. How about, as a compromise, we both simply respect a straight-forward request by our club chairman? If it gets to the point where sanctions are placed on the club it will eventually set fan against fan. Is that what you want? But even without sanctions, the bad publicity this stuff already brings in our direction is going to start effecting the decisions of players and coaching staff contemplating signing contracts with us - and similar is true for sponsors and investors. The result is that it's going to hamper our ability to win our title back. That's the point here. That's all I care about. Any tim spy reading your posts must be rubbing their hands together with glee. Divide the support, cause agro for the club. Don't be a mug.

This argument gets repeated over and over by those who don't want to change, but it's clearly a weak one. These songs play into our enemies hands - they give them a plausible reason to punish us that an average member of the public would support. Can you think of an example of "something else about us to get offended about" that would seem reasonable to the outside world? You could also argue that anyone with testicular fortitude would take personal responsibility for what they sing, rather than hide in a crowd and have the club and wider support share the punishment for their actions. If you feel strongly about your right to sing these songs, go stand outside Holyrood and give it laldy.

By singing these songs, we make it easy for our detractors to come after us, and we make the neutral (in the UK press for example) unsympahetic towards us and less likley to see our side of things on the wider issue. We also create awkward moments in the press room for SG, and our supporters' bodies and board have to issue public apologies. If we stay on the right side of the rules and the law our detractors will be forced to use contrived ways to come after us, which will be obvious to the neutral observer and will win us support on the wider issue. Whether we agree with it or not, the weight of public opinion condemns the use of derogatory terms for a person based on their religion. I've always argued that f***** refers to someone of a particular political opinion, but that doesn't hold water in the case of Clarke. What definition of the word f***** were the section of the support who sang at Clarke using?

So call him a baldy wanker or whatever. There's no justification for calling him a ******, and it should be pretty fucking obvious that anyone who does is providing the usual suspects with another stick to attack my club with. Sadly we can't fuck the rest of Scottish football as we need somebody to play against on a Saturady afternoon. You don't have to like or respect the other clubs, but we do have to coexist with them. Stand up for the club by all means, but I can't see why anyone would knowingly provide our detractors with ammo.

To be honest, I've got a lot of sympathy for Clarke here. He's been a bit of a clown these last couple of weeks with his comments on Defoe diving but, to the best of my knowledge, he's never uttered a peep about Irish history or politics. I've no problem giving him a hard time, but he's no more a "******" than many of the catholic players that have played for us, so why bring that into it? (To my mind, a ****** is someone who glorifies republican terrorists and sings bigoted anti-British songs - and most likely self-applies the term.) It's good that Boyd's sitting alongside him too - it makes it that bit harder for the editorially biased to frame this as specifically Rangers' issue. The interviewer really ought to have asked Kris if he expects to receive an apology too though.

That's another strand of why I've been disappointed in Davis, and to a lesser extent Defoe, so far. As well as adding a bit of quality and guile I was hoping they'd set an example on the pitch - spur the team on with their winning mentality, and the professionalism to dig out results in unglamorous fixtures. It's not happening though.

Does a replay count normally as a match missed for suspension purposes?

If you take Morelos's actions on their own, there's no way anyone would suggest it's anything more than a yellow. He keeps his foot in, but doesn't "lash out" or make much contact to speak of. It's only because McKenna reacted the way he did (tried to do a headstand so he could put his studs in Alfie's face) and got a red, that the ref felt the need to give Morelos one too. I'm convinced that if McKenna hadn't reacted, no one would even be talking about this.