DoofersDad

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that the main blame cannot be laid at the doors of the 2 clubs - much as I dislike both of them. The alarmimg statistic is that only 3 people (can't call them "fans") were arrested despite the number of police and availability of CCTV. As long as people behaving in this abhorant way are allowed to get away with it they will continue to behave in this way. I can understand decisions to play games behind closed doors but isn't that evidence of a complete failure of our criminal justice system? These games should be open to genuine fans but if high policing levels are deemed to be necessary then someone has to pay for it. In my book people found guilty of these crimes should be the ones to pay. If punitive fines were levied on these thugs then that could go towards paying the policing costs. In this day and age it should also be possible to effectively ban these folk from grounds for good using electronic recognition. It pains me to say it but I am increasingly concerned about the attitudes of the police these days. There is a lack of willingness to get involved and make arrests. No wonder statistics for violent crime are down. This ties in with comments on another thread about the lack of action by police over a criminal assualt on one of our fans at Parkhead at the weekend. Meanwhile I have seen speed traps and cars stopped for speeding on the approach to the Kessock Bridge works at a time of day when traffic flow is low and there can be no realistic reason why it is not safe to use that stretch of the dual carriageway as normal. The clubs are often held accountable for the behaviour of their "fans" but realistically they have little influence on what they do. It is the police's job to enforce law and order and it 's about time they started doing what they are paid for.

The Hughes' defence committee's arguments get more absurd by the minute. In order to get to the final, the players had to win a semi-final. This was played in a much bigger ground than our own and was mostly occupied by fans from the opposition. They had also played at the final venue against Celtic with a large and voiciferous opposition support. In the semi-final the team got through by winning a penalty shoot out by scoring some pretty impressive spot kicks. Having watched those, there is absolutely no way Aberdeen would have set up for a penalty shoot out. I very much want Yogi to suceed. I can understand the argument that Yogi should be given time despite the disappointing results and perfomances, but what I can't understand is this attitude of denial and absurd justifications for things not going as we would like. I would love to see a constructive defence of Hughes but sadly nobody can offer one. Hopefully the final few games will give some objective evidence that Hughes might be able to take the club forward next season.

There seem to be parallels here to recent concerns about an inapropriate song from our fans. Haven't seen any update on that and whether the club actually took any action at the end of the day. On that occasion, fans expressing concern were criticised for not having reported it to the authorities at the time. Clearly fans have reported the Parkhead incidents appropriately but the appropriate authories appear to be unwilling to do their job even when specifically informed of criminal activity. OCG is right to suggest we reserve judgment on the response of Celtic in this matter. It may be that Celtic take things up with the police and the unacceptable inaction on the day may yet be addressed. Failing that a formal complaint should be addressed to the police by the club. The lad who brings the drum has added a great atmosphere to matches and helps many others get involved with the chanting. The atmosphere created must be a help to the team. It would be a real shame (but very understandable) if the incident put him or anyone else off from bringing a drum to games. Some of our fans give great support to the club and it really is important that the club be seen to support the fans when incidents like this happen when fans are giving their support to the club.

On the contrary - I think it would be rather odd if folk who did not satisfy the requirements to be on the electoral register got a vote whilst those who do satisfy the requirements did not get a vote. In practice, I imagine that very few fruit pickers will get themselves onto the electoral role. We really can't cherry pick who gets a vote and who doesn't

But this referendum is not like "any election". It is about permanent independence for Scotland - the land of my birth and the country that defines my nationality and my passport. It is about a matter which has the potential to significantly ( and permanently ) alter and affect my identity and status and the identity and status of all Scots living outside Scotland for the rest of their lives. Yet we/they are not allowed a voice! I am being told that because I don't live physically in Scotland I get no say in the matter of my Nationality, passport and status being changed forever. I now know what it feels like to have my human rights ignored, abused and violated while people stand by unconcerned and uncaring. One could also argue that folk in the rest of the UK will have their national identity changed if Scotland votes for Independence. Of more significance is that if Scotland becomes independent there will be practical consequences for the citizens in what is left of the UK, but yet these folk don't get a vote. In my view there is a far stronger argument for all voters in the UK to get a vote than for "Scots" who don't live in the UK. And what exactly is a "Scot"? It may well be that you were born and brought up in Scotland with parents who had lived most if not all of their lives in Scotland and therefore nobody would doubt your status as a Scot. But the position is not as clear cut for some. Just what is it that defines nationallity? Is someone born in Scotland Scottish just because their "English" parents happened to be in Scotland when Mum went into labour? Apart from the accident of their birth, they might never have been in Scotland in 50 years. If they are Scottish, then it follows that someone who has lived all their life in Scotland with "Scottish" parents but who happened to have been born in Carlisle is not Scottish! And there are a whole spectrum of scenrarios in between with parents none, one or both of which are "Scottish", folk who are adopted, people who have lived one year in Scotland or 5 or 10 or 25 or whatever period of time and any combination of those. What combination of these factors makes you "Scottish"? The bottom line is that in reality you are Scottish if you feel Scottish rather than because you satisfy some bureaucratic definition of nationality. It is therefore totally impractical for "Scots" not on the electoral roll in Scotland to have a vote - just how do you propose it would be determined who would be entitled to vote? I was born and brought up in England of English parents and although I have lived in Scotland for most of my life I will always think of myself as English rather than British (certainly not Scottish!) but yet my passport does not define me as English - it would be nice if it did yet it may in future define me as Scottish. Whether or not that affects my status and identity seems irrelevant to me. Whatever my passport says, I'm English because I feel English. What is relevant and important is that as a resident of Scotland upon whom Government decisions impact on a daily basis, I get a say in how Scotland is governed. I really don't see why folk who see themselves as Scottish but who have decided not to live in Scotland and who therefore are not affected by the outcome of the vote in any practical day to day way should get a vote which impacts on those of us who, regardless of our origins, choose to live in Scotland and to be a part of Scottish Society.

Good to see a new member getting right to the key issue. When the Board contracted Hughes it was presumably on the back of a plan / strategy for taking the club onwards and upwards. The question is whether the work that Hughes is doing is consistent with what was agreed with the Board. If it isn't, the the Board would be entirely right to dismiss him. But if what is happening is consistent with the longer term agreed plan then the Board should stick by him. Of course, we are not party to what has been said and agreed and therefore we are in no position to argue whether or not what we are witnessing is consistent with the strategy. But that does not mean to say that fans who are worried at what they are seeing should not be free to voice their concerns. Exchange of views is, after all, what a forum is all about. It seems to me that this thread would be better titled "Is Hughes doing a good job". I think there are many people who share my view that managers are often sacked far to early and need to be given time to see their ideas through, but who also have serious concerns about what is happening with the team at the moment. Numerous concerns have been raised in this thread and on several others and often these concerns have been raised in a very objective way. It is not personal. It is not Yogi bashing. It is fans who want what is best for this club raising genuine points of concern. On the contrary there have been hardly any posts onjectively justifying a view that Hughes is doing a good job. It is all very well for folk to raise concerns but, as I say, it is the Board who know whether what is happening is consistent with what was agreed between them and Hughes when they gave him the contract. There really can be little doubt that fans are perfectly justified in feeling they are being short changed at the moment and therefore I think it would be reasonable for the Board to be rather more forthcoming about what their hopes and aspirations are for Hughes' tenure as manager and how they square what we are currently witnessing with that. I am not saying that Hughes should be sacked or even that he is doing a bad job, I am simply saying that I can't square what I am seeing on the park now as a reasonable stepping stone to what I want to see on the park in the future.

Why should the rules to vote in the referendum be any different to those for any election that determines the political direction of Scotland? If ex pat scots were to be allowed to vote then how on earth would you define who is a Scot and who is not. The only way you can realistically vote is based on your residency. If you have chosen to move away from Scotland then why should you have a vote which impacts on those of us who actually live here?

Couldn't he have waited till after the game to get his legs waxed?

Would they not still be in contract till the end of the season? It seems mad not to have a full bench and at least if one of the youngsters who is not going to be offered a new contract were to be needed on the pitch for some reason it would be an opportunity to sell themselves. No way would they let the club down. If there genuinely were no other in contract players available then the youngsters' contracts should not have been terminated so quickly. This smacks of poor management however you look at it. Absolutely agree with IHE - an explanation is needed.

If all these lads are leaving and Hughes is not bringing anyone in, we are going to be rather thin on the ground (and on the bench) next season.

Look on the bright side, at least we're not Hibees.

The struggles off the park have picked up a notch. New criminal investigations according the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27177760

Probably knocked some sense into him.

The sad thing is though that there will always be "businesmen" who will pour good money after bad to support the club and their over paid, under-performing players rather than use the money to pay their own staff a decent wage The fan base remains huge and the income stream will remain well above any other club in Scotland apart from Celtic. Even with very poor management from the Board they will continue to rise up through the ranks which in turn will fuel the income stream. Yes, there will be a few more alarms along the way but as surely as night follows day they will be established as one of the top 2 in 3 or 4 years. Lets just enjoy it whilst we can.

The better together campaign are asking voters to put a cross in the "No" box so it stands to reason that the word "No" will feature prominently in their advertising campaign. If the question on the ballot paper was "Do you want Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom?" then the advertising might be "Do you want to keep using the pound? Yes please!" To suggest the use of the word "No" in this context is negative really is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in this campaign.

Adams would be perfectly entitled to tell Hamill what he thought of his antics. He may have been out of his technical area but that in no way makes him at fault for what happened. Just because a manager is out of his technical area does not given opposition players the right to assault him.

Backwards is still backwards regardless of whether or not we usually have a second half of the season slump (which I don't think is actually the case). Fact is that we have gone backwards in the 2nd half of this season and did so last season. IMO last season's slump was a lack of confidence caused by a realisation that after the Barnsley fiasco the manager did not actually want to be at this club. But this thread is about Butcher and not the reasons for us going backwards this season. Clearly Hibs have gone backwards more than anyone and after a brief honeymoon period the results seem to demonstrate a worrying (from a Hibs perspective) inability on Butcher's part to get the same performance level and results from the same squad of players as the previous manager did. Presumably there will be a lot of new faces at Easter road next year and unless Butcher can deliver much bestter results pretty quickly with his choice of player I think early retirement beckons.

I think Ross is more a Butcher style of player than a Hughes one. Whilst Hughes seeks to play a passing game and Ross is probably one of the better passers of a ball, Hughes also wants players who get stuck in and I think that is where Ross is weak. With the emergence of Christie and Watkins I'm not sure that Ross is likely to feature much in Hughes plans for next year other than seconf line cover. Hibs might offer Ross more money and a greater likelihood of first team football, so if an offer came in from Hibs I can see him being happy to take it and for the club to let him go for a modest fee.

Whilst happy to have a laugh at Adams' expense, I can't see any fault from Adams in this incident. He didn't decide to fall down, he was firmly knocked down and quite deliberately at that. Had it been accidental the natural action would have been to go to help Adams up and apologise but he just stood over him gloating. Should have been a straight red for Hamill who was also behaving like a complete *rse with his antics with the ball. A yellow for the antics with the ball and a straight red for knocking Adams down.

With that run of form one might argue that they should now be favourites for the play off place. The rest of them must feel that Hibs are the team they must beat. It would be fascinating to see what the reaction at Easter Road would be to relegation. Such a scenario was unthinkable a few weeks ago but is very much on the cards now.

Makes it really interesting in the bottom half, But just think, had it not been for the introduction of the play offs this season it would all be pretty meaningless.

Just a thought about the crowd. Have we ever had so few home fans for a match against the Dons? Aberdeen fans came in good numbers and without them the crowd would have been well down on usual home gates - even for televised games. I can't help but think that some poor home performances of late have contributed to this but would hope that a return to a more productive sytle of play which this game demonstrated will encourage a much better turn out for the final home game of the season.

I quite enjoyed the game. There was a lot to be positive about and it was certainly much better than the previous home game against Motherwell. I think the comments above regarding Tansey are a bit harsh - he has had better games but I thought he put in a decent shift and was unlucky not to score what would have been a great goal. Mention too for both Raven and Tremarco who I thought had pretty solid games. Defensively we were sound but the real positive for me was that whilst there was clearly a desire to pass the ball out of defence, if it needed hoofing it was hoofed without hesitation. The main concern from watching this was Billy. In recent weeks much of the criticism of the team is that we have not been creating chances and particularly for Billy who has often been quite isolated. Well, last night we created a good few and in truth Billy could have had a hatrick and really should have converted at least one. Watkins, Doran and Christie all set him up with glorious chances and he really should have been first to the rebound when Tansey hit the bar. Certainly he worked hard and got himself into great positions but he needs to be putting some of these away. It is interesting to read some of the comments here about this being a poor game because if Billy had tucked 2 or 3 of these chances away, everyone would be cooing about what a great performance it had been from the team. I would agree with others about the difference Christie made when he came on - but it was rather short lived. After he played that glorious cross-field ball to Mckay he had little impact. He frequently lost possession and once even got muscled off the ball by Willo Flood! There is no doubting his talent but I'm, not so sure that he's ready for a start yet. And Adam who? I only realised Rooney was playing for Aberdeen when he got subbed. Full marks to our defence for keeping him so quiet. It might have been a different story if he had the chances Mckay had. That really sums up the game for me.

Disciplinary points, maybe?

5 points