️ Come on you Reds! ️
Andrew
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Andrew
-
-
Bit annoyed that the two home games I haven't been to were today(hungover) and Ross County(depressed about referendum) were the two games I have missed on my ST and both Aberdeen have scored 3-0.
-
-
Has also said it will not be regarded as failure if they are not promoted this year which is a very odd statement for the owner of a club 9 points clear to make. Possibly hinting that they cannot afford to be promoted this year?
Not sure if I am missing something but why wouldn't they be able to afford to be promoted? Should it not be the other way around?
-
Just lost to Hearts, they now have a 9 point lead over the blue meanies
Ian Black conceded a penalty as well, what a joyous sight it is seeing them all so miserable. Typical Huns, resorted to trying to injure Hearts players once they realised they weren't going to win it. Lucky to have ended with 10 men, but weak referring let them get away with it.
They really should have left with 8 men. Miller and Boyd should have been off. It was clear there tactics were to disrupt the game as much as possible from the start. What a strange horrible team they are.
-
Emotionally, i'm definitely a stay, but it's a black hole for money at the mo. We missed a trick by not buying the old gas works site behind the SS (shows how long its been since i've been
) which would have been perfect for us. Currently, I can't see Aberdeen providing sufficient infrastructure wherever we end up so remaining is perfectly logical. I do think Tom is right, proper consultation does need to be had to ensure we don't ostracise a majority of the support all in the name of modernisation. It needs to be honest though, if such a thing is possible. Lets face it, we don't need a 20K stadium, 15-18 would be more than sufficient. The biggest problem as far as I can see is Pittodrie Street, whether club would be able to provide another route before closing it off I highly doubt. But importantly, despite being a very costly exercise it would allow the club to breathe a little. Obviously it does depend what is below the ground there...
I definitely think Aberdeen would need at least an 18k stadium. In a good year we would be looking at getting >15k against Hearts, Dundee United, Rangers, Celtic and maybe Hibs and Dundee.
-
I'm nae replying to any fishing, but the obvious place to build a completely new stadium complex (if that's the answer) is Northfield.
Knock down the school and the flats and build there. Rejuvenate the area, easy access for fans from the North, (a spur from the fabled land of Oz AWPR) (fuck the visiting support) and keeps us in the town!
Northfield is just as far away from the centre as Loirston is.
-
The simple answer would be to have a stadium built where union terrace gardens is and have the stands rising above union street. Easily done.
-
Will this mean that Milne is no longer the majority share holder as he must have swapped equity for debt with the bank?
-
any links for tonight, vipbox is full of crap links with dodgy popups all over it
Just use adblock plus?
-
And, by the way, I quite like your analogy. However, before you move out, it's a good idea to have a place to stay, some money to get you started and a plan to earn money to keep you going - otherwise you're likely going to end up on the streets or crawling back to mummy and daddy at some point (unless you get incredibly lucky). On the other hand, if you're expecting other people to pay for you while you doss about on internet forums in the middle of the night pretending to have had a couple of shandy's then we may have a different view of an Independent Scotland.
A bit close to the bone. I'm at least looking for a job while dossing about doing nothing.
-
A better analogy would be living with your parents vs moving out. Scotland atm is living with her parents. You get given the money and told what to do with some of it. You can make some choices but not too many. Your parents drag you to things you don't want to do. Or you can move out, and things maybe risky for a while and may not turn out exactly as you planned but you will have economic and personally freedom to live how you wish. You could even be richer by harnessing yourself exactly how you wish. You see your parents going to big meetings and worrying about big events while you don't worry and just get on with things.
-
Let's make it simple for you and use an analogy. If someone wants to build a house, they have an architect come in and draw up some plans. Things may change - either budget reasons or environment issues etc that may cause them to change their vision - but ultimately they have some form of blueprint with some calculations and plans as to where they are heading. They generally have a budget or a plan to get a budget. They don't borrow some chalk and a blackboard and draw a square on it and then say 'this is my hoose', expect a builder to come in and build it, have no clear idea of how to fund it and then insult everyone who asks any questions or suggests that they may want to add some additional detail to the design. (Note you may have some people that want to follow the latter path but most people would be averse to that type of risk just for clarity).
Risk taking is why things change. People like you are why we will never get rid of the Queen, why drugs will never be legal, why we will never have a proportional representation of parliament, never get rid of the house of lords, why the UK will never be a secular country and why will never be able to have an independent Scotland all while the privileged few will still run this country. Shit analogy as well. If your wanting the future of a new country to be as basic as building a house then you will never have the courage to vote yes. Global and national economics is uncertain.
-
I hope he does well. I don't think he is a bad guy and comes across fairly well when he is a pundit but all the old firm shite couldn't be good for someone with his sort of temperate.
-
for a poll over 2000 is quite high
But it is then allocated into age groups and pollsters struggle to get younger folk anyway. With 17-18 having only two year age gap the sample size was tiny.
-
Not according to the lord ashcroft poll from after the referendum Kow. It shays 16-54 were yes and 55+ were no http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Referendum-day-poll-summary-1409191.pdf
Both have small sample sizes so neither can be relied upon. The Ashcroft poll margin for error in the 17-18 years was something like 45-92% yes so can't take much from it.
-
A very strange comment considering Holyrood is now using it's tax varying powers. Sounds like you might have swallowed some of the nonsense from Project McFear?
The campaigns really shouldn't have mattered anyway. It's difficult to predict what's going to happen in the next year with politics/economics so there was little point in arguing about it with Scotland. The yes campaign should have focused on the archaic and nepotistic political system we live in.
-
We really should revert to GSTQ as the national football anthem. It would be total hypocrisy to continue to use Flower Of Scotland because the referendum confirmed that Scotland is a nation of visionless fucking cowards.
Never mind the national anthem we shouldn't have a football team. We're a region not a country.
-
Personally I saw the yes campaign more like the Romanov regime at Hearts or Bonetti brothers at Dundee. Promised X Y & Z and everytime someone asked 'how can you afford this' they either deflected the issue and accused the press etc of bias or made claims of mythical investment with no firm evidence to back them up.
Could have been totally wrong and it would all have been milk and honey but at the same time it could have been liquidation and economic suicide. The 'NO' campaign barely had to lift a finger because the YES campaign didn't give themselves enough time to get credible evidence to do the job of convincing the majority to make a change.
Where are these examples of the yes campaigns promises that were too ambitious?
The debate was far too presidential, tedious and pernickety and that worked for the no camp. Rather than focusing on if we wanted independence the debate was for too focused on if we can do it. But it also seems like there were a hell of a lot of people who claimed to be undecided but in reality were just trying to find a good enough reason to vote no rather than admitting it was because there was a tiny chance it might affect their own job.
-
First time making a match thread. This place is dead...
Didn't realise it was sold out. Was going to go down tomorrow to buy tickets. Cash turnstiles only in the main stand. Hopefully 1k don't go down on the day.
In(hopefully)
City centre
Main Stand
Town
4-3 Pawlett
-
Still don't think the ball had gone out of play before Reynolds headed it back across.
It was flagged for offside.
-
Absolutely spot on, especially the bit in bold.
Salmond has been treated as some sort of hero but for me he let the Yes campaign down.
It shouldn't have been about Salmond anyway. It should have been a debate about constitutional change not the sort of Presidential type debate it turned into.
I also wish No voters would stop going on about the economic reasons why they voted no. The currency issues and EU would have worked themselves over time. The good thing about being independent is you can react and change to your countries wishes. There must be a hell of a lot of people who voted no because they like the Queen and the whole idea of being "British" but no one seems to be admitting that.
-
I'm no conspiracy theory nut for the record. This warrants investigation
They count the number first then they count the result. No conspiracy - Scotland really is just that shit.
-
All over bar the shouting.
Andrew, surely you'd be better staying and putting your efforts into influencing and changing Scotland, than turning your back on it
Life is finite. Why should I stay in a country that disagrees with me?
-
Shite place. Shite country. Fuck Aberdeen. Fuck em. I am leaving as soon as possible. I just can't be bothered anymore. WTF is going on.
) which would have been perfect for us. Currently, I can't see Aberdeen providing sufficient infrastructure wherever we end up so remaining is perfectly logical. I do think Tom is right, proper consultation does need to be had to ensure we don't ostracise a majority of the support all in the name of modernisation. It needs to be honest though, if such a thing is possible. 
Dirthy Filthy Hun Scumbag Vermin (deceased), liquidated & Green abondons ship
in Football Chat
Posted
A fairly realistic hope would be that kids growing up now who's parent/s support Rangers might go on to support ICT, United, Aberdeen etc. instead. But in reality it will probably just mean more "fans" for the likes of Man U, Barca, Real etc.