Barcosente

It doesn't matter if you are a footballer or an accountant, you learn things every day. It's whether you care enough about what you have learned that defines whether you truly learn from your mistakes. Not enough footballers care enough about past errors commited, and if that's the case, then it's down to the man selecting the team to select someone else after pointing the continual errors made. Footballers are thick though. You got that right.

To be fair, if this the case, then McIness has only himself to blame, given the negative outlook and match tactics he foists on the team and to the supporters. If fans are being negative, it's the unpleasant football diet they are being fed that's to blame.

Yes we do have a complaint. All clubs have a legitimate complaint if a 50/50 share of tickets is not initially offered. It is supposed to be a neutral venue, not a home match for either of the 2 big Glasgow clubs. It's bad enough that the match is being played on their doorstep. I keep harking back to it, but it's a point that people, supporters of the big 2 and the ruling authorities can't seem to get their heads around despite it being relatively simple. It's a neutral venue FFS!

It's a supposedly neutral venue. Therefore the initial ticket allocation should reflect this. Only after a deadline for ticket sales has passed, should the imbalance be addressed. To do otherwise makes it a home match for the side with more tickets. We went through this nonsense for the infamous 2000 cup final, when the hordes received more tickets and turned up wearing orange I seem to recall. It seems the authorities or The Rangers can't get this fair concept of neutrality through their neanderthal sculls.

The ridiculous decision to award the Huns more tickets than the Dons means that this is no longer a neutral venue. Spfl have added to the catalogue of what seems to be and comes across as anti Dons decisions. No problem with the Huns receiving more tickets IF we can sell them, but to give them a bigger allocation straight off is blatant favouritism. We fought hard and loud about this inequality in the past and once more, the blazers don't give a shit about anyone else other than their favoured teams. Blatant cheating and against the slogan of "fair play" that has been printed by football authorities for years.

Leopards never change their spots, tigers never change their stripes etc.... so the SFA inducting a fat wife beating alcoholic Geordie into the Scottish hall of fame just about fits their modus operandi of promoting ex clubs of the Scottish league. It's almost like they are trying to wash off some of the grime and stench from the ex club by remembering some it's ex "star" players. Obviously, with Gascoigne featuring 78 times and scoring 30 goals for the dead club and now being inducted, we can look forward to seeing Hans Gilhaus inducted too given his 78 Dons appearances and 28 goals. Then again perhaps not, as he never featured for either of the Glasgow big 2. The SFA and SPFL are falling over themselves to blatantly promote the interests of 2 clubs (or 3 if you count Sevco) with no attempt at all now being made to hide it. I'm surprised they arrived at making "Rasellickbyraway" play at Murrayfield given Brenda Lodgers having a greet about it being a home game for Hearts. I'd say making the green soap dodgers play their first domestic semi final outside Glasgow for 92 years is a good start given they have played most of their semi finals in those 92 years a mile and half from their own ground. Look forward to seeing more ludicrously decisions being made by the Buffons running and ruining our game.

Having looked at the incident closely a few times now, I am struggling to see where a 2 match ban is coming from. It looks clumsy at worst and a good tackle at best There is no doubt McKenna plays the ball first and the Celtic man is then taken out. The Celtic man's forward movement clearly takes McKenna's standing leg forward and makes the whole scene look worse than it really was. It's the fact that the incident is being interpreted by the powers that as be as deliberately violent somehow that puzzles me here. Was it dangerous? Not deliberately. Would Dons fans have complained so vociferously if it had been the other way round? I'm not so sure. Celtic and their motley hordes get their knickers in a twist about it and suddenly the lad is being asked to accept a 2 match ban. Dark forces are at work here with yet more unnamed chinless wonders deciding things after the fact. At this rate, defenders will start second guessing every challenge they make and we'll be left with crap matches to watch and entire squads on the sidelines who are suspended because they've been retrospectively penalised for breathing in the direction of ugly sisters players. When I arrived in Scotland in 1967, football was played by men in a style that fans enjoyed. The game is now effectively being played out in a room by a bunch of faceless buerocrats who seem intent on robbing Scottish football fans of being able to watch and enjoy proper football. Political correctness has attached it's self to a sport where blood and thunder has been part of the Scottish game for decades. It's fair to say that I am not enjoying football much at the moment and my lack of enjoyment mostly stems from things not being decided where it matters, namely on the god damn pitch!

Mikey Devlin might rightly be denied appearance money and a potential win/ and/or any other bonus as a result of this decision. Might not be a crime in the true sense, but the decision has incorrectly cost Devlin and the club money. Still a crime wrapped up in a misappropriated fashion by the SFA.

We'll probably find the lazy journos will make something up to cover their particular papers/channels agenda, so fear not on that front. Like Rico says, the statement by the SFA borders on criminally negligent and ignores the full argument set forward clearly by AFC. I wouldn't at all be surprised now if the Hammer throwers in charge of the madhouse SFA now fine the club for having the audacity to challenge them with the statement they just issued.

Like I've said before......The SFA are corrupt in decision making and it appears, capable of making a blatantly bad refereeing decision become right. It's not the first, and definitely won't be the last that clubs suffer at the hands of these faceless buffoons that are making these idiotic decisions? The incompetence is outstanding and defies belief. Even Craig Gordon and Brenda Lodgers are questioning the validity of these so called "expert" panels.

And also this kind of confirming that match officials don't know the rules and therefore justifying the chants from the stands of "you don't know what your doing" "Scotland's referees are seeking urgent clarification from football's international law makers over what constitutes a straight red card ahead of the return of the top-flight this weekend, with a video package believed to include incidents involving Rangers pair Alfredo Morelos and Allan McGregor as well as Hearts striker Steven Naismith being sent" Nuff said

If the club have indeed gone with the Logan as last man defence I'd say there is a debate to be had among the guys/girls of the panel who viewed the evidence provided. The brief they'd have been given would have been " was a clear goal scoring opportunity denied? " Obviously, this was not a clear goalscoring opportunity, and no matter how many times I watch this back, Logan's presence in the build up and aftermath is debatable as to the outcome thereafter, so the panel either misunderstood what they were asked to look at, or do not understand the physics or laws of the game. Of course the SFA are being as obtuse as ever and showing a lack of transparency that Maxwell promised he'd bring the game in Scotland. That no explanation of the decision has been posted by now is a disgrace. Had it been one of the 2 Glasgow clubs, this would have been posted the minute any decision had been made. There have been several of these decisions made by so called "expert" panels which have now seen the opposite outcome to what the majority of fans, experienced journals and ex players have expected to see. We, the paying supporters deserve better from the powers that be, and until some sense and clarity about how these whacky decisions are arrived at, then each match increasingly becomes a lottery with no winner.

Kilmarnock fixture away as predictable as ever. Never a thought given to supporters of any of the clubs involved and in particular to our good away fans. As mentioned already, TV has bought and paid for the souls of football clubs.

I'm also sure that the club would have put forward the double argument of Brophie tugging back Devlin before the latter incident. The argument as being the same as the Morellos case is the same, but I don't think that the 2 panels would even have thought of the relevance, or even have coralted the two, such is the inconsistency alive and well within the decision makers of Scottish football. I believe that they will have looked at this incident in isolation, rather than have looked at precedents such is the shortsightedness of this particular panel. This is not a legal decision, but one of a panel who are anonymous and beyond reproach, unlike a jury. As I see it, the match officials do not......using a well versed song from the stands "know what they are doing", which would be entirely down to there being a massive grey area of interpretation of the always changing rules of the game. In short they do not all know the laws of the game and therefore the ongoing repercussions that befall clubs during that match of thereafter. While clubs might see themselves as " locked in" I don't think that supporters of "Provincial" clubs such as ours can afford this view. The clubs might be owned by money men but unless they operate in the English Premiership or the top 2 in Spain or Germany in fact could not function without the supporters paying at the turnstiles.how If we want change, then the screws must be turned on the boards of our respective clubs to achieve this. The boards of Aberdeen Football Club over the years have been complicit in allowing the status quo of the Glasgow clubs to have such a big day in how the game is run and by whom. The other so called big clubs out with those 2 are just as complicit as ours. What you sow, you shall reap.

Great news for the club and even better for Bruce. It's now up to him to make it impossible for the manager to not play him.

I think too much focus on this incident has been placed on the tug on Devlin's shirt before Devlin tugged Brophie's. As I see it, the red was given because the ref deemed Devlin to be the last man. The concern that the decision was upheld by the comittee, based on this part of the incident alone rather than the "was Shay Logan actually the last man" part is worrying. The fact that we can see Logan in the picture and as a result could actually be deemed to be the last man, casts the decision of the ever incompetent egotistical Thomson into a grey area and would then put doubt on the decision to award a red card to Devlin. The committee in my opinion failed to agree on the main issue, and given that a "3 for 3" agreement is required to overturn the referees verdict, it may be that we are in for a long hard season, because there will be plenty more to come. For what it's worth, I do think that match officials have a hard job these days and at times are not all singing off the same hymn sheet due to all not being fully conversant with the letter of the law...........which is a sad indictment of the Scottish game and our lawyers and bankers officials. Every club asks for a fair crack of the whip, but inconsistent decision making makes that unlikely. As for the setup favouring the 2 favourite Glasgow clubs, it has always been thus. No one can tell me that a referee or linesman ( I'm old school), isn't going to be influenced by 40 or 50 thousand Weegies ( or Irish if you prefer) calling for a penalty. in my opinion, the beeks at the SFA are similarly influenced by the way too powerful voices at those two clubs, running scared of making decisions against them. The rest of the other clubs are easy targets therefore. We were warned by one of the esteemed members of the buyable SFA board that "football armageddon is coming". This is just the start folks and the two colours that will be left standing are green and blue unless we do something now.

Thanks Tom and others for the great post and great memory! Good finds there, and a warning for any club thinking about putting themselves into debt to get a new stadium. The long and short of this issue is that the club have to do something one way or another. I am all for moving if the club are transparent and tell the fans how it is going to be funded. Some of this has been made public, but it's the parts that haven't been made public that concern me and should concern every supporter of Aberdeen F.C. The other concern I have is the location and how we get thousands of fans in and out the ground on matchday. Currently, a lot of fans park up in and around Pittodrie, beach area etc with some also using official car parks. 1200 car park spaces I believe is quoted for the new ground and those are to be snapped up by season ticket holders, meaning that we shall have to find parking somewhere in Westhill area or rely on currently unreliable transport. Other concerns on here already raised are the watering down of the matchday experience. A lot of fans I know enjoy a beer and or lunch with friends and leave the city centre to get to the ground in time for kickoff. It's a ritual at the majority of clubs all over the UK and even abroad. The club will need to address those concerns to make sure that some fans don't just look at there watch at 2.30 or half an hour before which ever kick off time is deemed by TV, and shrug their shoulders and don't bother going....which I guarantee will be the case for some It's good that a lot of fans are on board with this new stadium, but being blind about the pitfalls and debt the club will have to take on is not on.

Where is the control over something that you cannot show the money available to spend? At the moment no one has the answer to give As to where the cold hard cash is coming from to complete the stadium and facilities. Therefore, until this is made clear, we simply do not know the level of control the club has in managing this debt. I may be in my 70's now but I am not some doddery old fool who doesn't understand the concept of mortgage management. Depending on how much the shortfall is then we don't know how much this will be. The club may have stayed that this will be less than current ground maintainence,but until they tell us where the money is coming from it is all just a sales pitch by the powers that be at the club. It could be more than the current ground maintainence in this case of the shortfall or as yet unnamed investors decide this isn't for them. In the second scenario with investors shortfall, this will mean less to spend on developing a successful team. This is obvious. Of course Aberdeen are nothing like Valencia or Spain, and I have only used this example because I am here visiting my family and have been able to draw some valid comparisons between the two teams situations. Plenty clubs have gone into financial dire straights as a result of having had to improve there stadia...Coventry as previously mentioned are one, Wolverhampton Wanderers almost famously went down the swanny because of building 1 stand. Recently, clubs being promoted to the top league in Scotland had to meet minimum criteria to gain admission with Dundee, Inverness, Ross County and Falkirk All shelling out to gain admittance to the top table, all of whom admitted at the time that it would impact on player recruitment. Falkirk's old ground and it's derelict state kept Aberdeen in the top league. There are plenty other examples of the likes of Falkirk, Hamilton, St mirren all having shiny new Lego stadia that saved their clubs from going under but only because supermarkets bought the old grounds. Aberdeen themselves put our club heavily into debt building The Richard Donald stand and it's no coincidence that The crap we've had to watch in a lot of The intervening years has been because there has been no cash as a result The last part of that last paragraph is an argument FOR moving. For the record, I have never said no to new stadium. Sentimentally, I am attached to Pittodrie but see the reasoning behind a new ground. I cannot jump aboard the new stadium "glee club" though, without seeing concrete answers as to where the cash is coming from. More transparency is needed in this respect. I know a lot of you guys are fully on-board with this, but an awful lot of us need more answers. Provide these, then we can judge for ourselves instead of wandering like zombies into a potential catastrophe for OUR club. It is not all fantastic. The famous movie quite once said " Show me the money" Time to show the fans where the money is.

"There really is nothing to worry about" Are you sure your last name isn't Milne? @Dunty. There is everything to worry about here. It is a massive gamble on behalf of the club, and let's not forget that the decision to build this gleaming new ground and facilities, is on behalf of the club. That means you, me and all of the posters on this site have vested interests in seeing this project work. It would be nice to see the whole thing work out nicely and for the Team to have state of the art facilities and a packed out ground (assuming you can park your car anywhere near Westhill) Saying naming rights, share issue and private investment is going to pay for the shortfall is like me saying that my winnings from the 2.20 at Kempton Park is going to pay for what I eat tonight. It's a gamble that may or may not come off. The word "mortgage" makes me shudder. That word means that the club would have to sacrifice some income to pay it. It also means that there is much less money available to spend on the thing that matters to us most and is essentially why we support the club, namely good players, both bought and home raised. I'm sure they said the same thing back in 2006 here in Valencia when they broke ground for the "New Mestalla". It looks fantastic btw. It even has a metro stop near by and an underground car park beneath the stadium. Thinking out of the box I'd say there. As alluded to, I am not saying "do nothing because it's the safer option" It is a dangerous option to go cack handed into a project that the money is not on the table for. Plenty of examples of this scenario are around that have shown clubs getting into financial difficulties because of improperly financed stadium building/improvements including the one here in Valencia which almost bankrupted the club and pretty much forced the club into foreign ownership, which sticks in the throats of the locals. We know that Pittodrie is falling apart and needs replacing or upgraded. I moved to Aberdeen for work in 1967 and have supported the Dons ever since so it's a little insulting for anyone to tell me the obvious. My question still stands. Where is the money coming from? All the answers i have seen to this point have been vague at best and non committal at worst. Where has the so called private investment been the last 20 years or so? If Mr Milne Wants this so badly, why doesn't he and his chums pay for it themselves? No use defending him or his cohorts in this. The game is now afoot and proper answers are required to bring doubters like me and many others in board. Too much blind faith is being placed on an outside bet here. Put a pound on the favourite on the Kempton 2.20. It may or may not pay for your meal tonight. In the absence of a win, there will always be stale bread to eat.

I don't think it's a direct comparison so much with what has happened here in Valencia with what is happening back in not so sunny Aberdeen as to the implications of committing to a new stadium that haven't, to my knowledge been publicly costed. Everyone knows how the Spanish economy has tanked and that building projects have been out on hold as a result. That much is obvious if you look around. There are similarities to be drawn between our club and Valencia however. I still have yet to see an answer as to where Aberdeen FC are getting the 50 million pounds from to find a new stadium. Does anyone actually know this? Ultimately, and to all our concern, will this unfunded stadium.... to the best of anyone's knowledge, stop or in any way hinder investment in the squad and\or playing staff? I think we could all agree that we'd be happy with the Team winning trophies in a crap Pittodrie than a crap team losing in the second or third tier in fantastic stadium? There are plenty of instances of teams suffering because of investment in stadia to the detriment of the playing squads. Transparency in where the money for the new stadium is coming from would be a start. Valencia sure as he'll don't know.

Currently, I'm in Valencia visiting daughter number 2 and her husband and 3 of my grandchildren I have been here quite a few times before but never visited the Mestalla till now. I was pretty impressed i have to say looking at the capacity of just under 50,000 and the history of the club. The thing that struck me was that there are a few striking similarities between them and Aberdeen. Firstly, the current stadium is also slap bang on the middle of a neighbourhood, completely surrounded by housing with no prospect of expanding the footprint of the stadium. The only ways are down or up. Secondly, they have plans to move to new stadium on the outskirts of the city, indeed they started building this glorious new cathedral of football back in 2006 with a 70,000+ capacity but have ran out of cash twice now and as a result. Now plans have been revised by the architects for a third time with reduced capacity of approx 55,000 being quoted. Valencia have so far spent around 150 million euros and have an empty unfinished shell of a stadium which it's estimated that they'll need to find around another 100 - 150 million euros to complete, with the banks taking control of the current ground in the shape of a guarantee. Work is yet to resume on the new stadium with a date being mentioned of season 20/21 as feasable. The guy who did the stadium tour today has said he expects another 3 years on top of this. Why do I mention this? Because the similarities between the two sides are close enough to make some comparisons. Neither team is expected to win the league any time soon with cup competition being the most realistic avenue to success. Both are working cities, albeit with 2 professional clubs here but 3 times + the population. The stadium issue to me is a warning though. Valencia C.F. Do not have enough cash to finish the project as it stands. The question that keeps running through my mind and has done from the start, is where is 50 million cash coming from to pay for the glowing Stewart Milne epitaph that would be A.F.C. new home outside the city proper coming from? Valencia last won a trophy in 2008 and i can't help but think that there is a link between lack of success and the millstone round the club's neck of the new stadium. Obviously there are comparisons that can't be drawn between the 2 sides, such as the incomparable richness of the teams and the fact that Valencia has a foreign owner. Coupled with the fortunes still being ploughed into La Liga and lack of in Scottish football, then there are major differences, but enough similarities at the same time to compare. Does anyone have any idea where the cash for the building of the Stewart Milne Dome is coming from, or has that question been answered and I missed it? If anyone has the answer to this, then please do tell. By the way, Valencia sucks. Not a buttery with cheese spread to be found?

Barton is entitled to spout anything he likes about Scottish football. He was offered a forum and used it, much like we all do here. He may have some valid points, but he is making his from a high vantage point as someone who has experienced playing football at a higher level than the teams we currently watch in Scotland. We all know that the standard of football elsewhere is better, but that can be directly attributed to Murdoch's millions and it's bastard stepchild BT sport. If we go back to pre pay tv days, the big clubs on both sides of the border were pretty much on a par with wages. Alex Ferguson famously left to manage Manchester United for less money than he was on at Pittodrie. Guys like Doug Rougvie left the club to go to a very poor Chelsea team in a very poor at the time, English league for a £5 a week more wage increase. Money has changed the game beyond all recognition from those days and for Barton to come out with this opinion is surely unsurprising to anyone given his past record of gobshitery. Barton picking on Scottish football with his words of wisdom is a bit like a young thug grabbing your 80 year old granny's purse in that it's an easy target, and obviously he has some sort of axe to grind with our poor Scottish game. He is right in saying some of the things he's said, but he's doing no more than stating the obvious really. Barton himself isn't really that well placed to comment, given that he couldn't hack Scottish football for longer than a few months before shitting his pants and getting himself signed off by his doctor. He is pretty much a No Mark who has vented his spleen on a forum. Ref the dogs at matches, it must be down to the long turnstile gates that clubs use these days that stop mongrels getting into the match. Given that the club intend to move to the countryside in the next couple of years, we might see more dogs and a few sheep at New Pittodrie. I do remember Police dog displays at Pittodrie with Alsatians jumping through hoops of fire and Plod being mauled after firing a gun by said dogs at half time though.

The Pittodrie surface never had time to bed in properly after being relaid at the start of this season. It had 6 weeks growing time when that type of surface needs 10 weeks to be ready for the rigours of a Scottish season. It could be argued that the most important signing of the summer would be a new pitch.

International football nations have been at this game of selecting players from other territories for years. Scotland are just doing what others have been doing for years but to a far more watered down extent. Take the French team for instance. For years, they have selected players from the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe to represent their country. The place is a dump, yet the island churn out International players by the dozen. France take advantage of colonial ties for this very purpose. The French leagues are full of Guadeloupe born players. The Germans of course have players that could represent Turkey if they wanted and vice versa. USA have selected players who could have played for Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile to name a few. Portugal and Brazil both have had players represent them that could have played for the others with no qualms. Japan had a Brazilian play for them a few years back, because he took Japanese citizenship. Russia have used a similar tactic for players from former Russian territories and beyond. Your man Putin has also offered Russian Citizenship to a couple of lads as I recall. Australia have had Greeks, Croatians (Mark Viduka anyone?) and numerous other nationalities represent them. Tiny Gibraltar have a mix of all 4 home countries playing for them. Scotland a long while back tried to tempt Matt Le Tissier and Graham Le Saux tentatively, because the Channel Islands are British territory. My point here is that McLeish is being less underhand about this that the examples above. If a good player from a British territory declared an interest in playing for Scotland, would Scotland turn him down just because he wasn't born here? If Ronaldo had a half brother who was half as good as his brother and had a Scottish dad, would Scotland tell him to jog on? International football doesn't really "float my boat", but just about everyone else is "at it", so if you want to remain crap then stick to half baked aniquated principals and get rid of anyone who sounds like an extra off Eastenders from the squad. While we are at it, if players refuse to eat haggis, shortbread and drink Irn Bru before matches, then strike them too. Maybe get rid of anyone also who doesn't have "peelie wallie" skin or know the words of "Donald far's yer troosers"? Modern International football is a far cry from the stuff that the sometimes cringeworthy "Tartan Army (Sorry Rod, you can't follow us anymore)" used to follow and watch while guys like Brown (The first one), Docherty and Ormond were in charge. If Scotland can find a decent Brazilian with a Scottish granny, then go for it. Scotland would just be doing what everyone else is doing.