RicoS321

I'm not having Coutts. He spent many years as an average midfielder in the lower leagues of England, so it's taken him a long time to come good (not to say he wouldn't have with us). We've had players like Seve and Nicholson in that time who were easily as good, if not better. Also, I don't remember him ever being on our books (I suspect if he was it may have even been before Calderwood), he was just at Cove where he was seen as a good prospect from what I remember? Was never particularly small there either. The good thing about our youth system is that it hasn't produced many talents that "got away". Mostly they were all pish. A handful came through to the first team and lasted the course or went elsewhere for a fee. Really you'd have to look back to a player like Maloney for any sort of example of a player that was let go that we didn't want to keep. In itself, I think that shows that we've got a reasonable record for retaining the correct players. Guys like Anderson, Hart, Clark etc we kept and made money from. Guys like Grimmer, Fraser, Maguire we tried to keep but they didn't want to stay. I can't think of any other than Maloney, and even he had a number of shite years in between a good start and a good end to his career. Then there's Dennis Law of course. That's the thing, there's always a shout fae the taxi driver/man in the pub that we let hunners of players go because they're too small, but actually that's a very rare occurrence and they generally can't name one if asked. Our main problem is not producing good players in the first place. I could name about 100 who've gone on to do nothing.

Those percentages don't ring a bell, I don't remember the Donalds being given that shareholding. If they had, I think it would have had to been offered to other investors, as it would surely have diluted their holding? I don't suppose it matters, just interesting. I agree with you about Milne's tenure, it has been disappointing. Although I suspect Ian Donald would have done a far worse job. Not that they were the only two possibilities of course. The worst decision of his spell being the RDS. How a developer could look at that stand and think that it was a good idea is staggering - a complete lack of foresight. At some point there must have been a plan in place for the remaining 3 stands, so what happened to it? It has - potentially - meant that we have to vacate our actual home and move outside the city to which the club belongs. That's staggeringly incompetent and wildly negligent in terms of a responsible fitba team chairmanship. If you'd said that, that would be our future, to a dons fan 30 years ago they'd think you were a fucking idiot. Nobody could possibly make such a shite move for the club? But it's happened. However, from a business perspective, it probably doesn't look too bad. The relevant major shareholders haven't really lost out over the years and there's still a valuable land asset retained.

A couple of things: 1. I dinna think Milne did clear the debt. He converted his loans to preferential share capital (or at least - I think - SMG did, as did AAM) which would become payable upon sale of the stadium (conflict?) as far as I remember. 2. It is very difficult for any person just to clear debt, or invest etc when yer monies are tied up in businesses. I'm in no way being critical of SM for his lack/perceived lack of investment in the club. We should be good enough, and well enough run, that we shouldn't need Milne or any other person to be investing in us on an on-going basis. Had SM built a better business (facilities etc) earlier then it could be argued that any investment he has/hasn't made wouldn't have been necessary as we may/may not have been making more money from our existing assets.

Never heard of him. Good stuff the dons though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42051573

It should only have a negative impact if those higher up at the club allow that. It would be very easy for the constant speculation to be made into a positive for our club and that's the way it should be being played indoors at Pittodrie. However, yer right, as it probably won't be!

Aye, it's all about centre midfield, and we haven't replaced Jack unfortunately. O'Connor doesn't have the coverage, neither does Tansey and Ball is pap. I don't think it helps that we'd pretty much defined Shinnie as a centre mid at the beginning of the season, but we're now going back on that. It's almost like we didn't address that midfield role because Shinnie was going to be there, but now we've re-defined him (correctly) as a left back, we're way short in midfield. That said, with Shinnie suspended, Logan playing poorly and Considine having to move into the centre for a lot of the game because McKenna was struggling, it was blatantly obvious that we were very short in the fullback area as a squad too. There was a huge number of gaps to be filled in the summer, and it appears our signings aren't going to fill them. Tansey, in my opinion, was never going to take Jack's role. I was very surprised at how much McInnes rated him, especially given his team finished well bottom of the league and he wasn't even a stand out. One of the problems I think we had was just getting numbers in, in time for Europe. GMS being a great example of that. That's meant we had varying needs at different times in the summer and we've ended up getting a lot of pish in to fill those needs just to get us through games (Maynard, Ball, GMS). It didn't pay off as we didn't spend the money to get the one player that would have made a difference (Moult) and so those three guys were just wasted signings. The question left is - given we have the square pegs situation - which square peg is the least offensive to us in our quest for a settled first 11? To my mind, if Tansey continues to be pap, then the square peg is Shinnie in midfield with Consi at left back. If Tansey can improve then switch him in for Shinnie. If that can get us through until January, then just do it. Dicking about with 3 at the back, or O'Connor so deep that it is effectively 3 at the back, isn't going to work. Revert to the 4-2-3-1 that has served McInnes well and just get our best 11 playing well in that formation.

Aye, good luck to him if he goes there. Certainly they'll have no issues with meeting the compensation fee, unlike der hun. It's a deserved step up if he gets it and would certainly prove his decision to turn down Sunderland was justified. It's easy to point out his flaws, but his points return has been phenomenal. It's also easy to ignore the number of shite managers in the EPL and Championship too who seem to get infinite chances; McInnes is far more deserving of the WBA job than a lot of the other options. Finally, it proves that it's best never to comment on any speculation regardless of who yer being linked with. If he'd said he wasn't interested in the hun job, the press would be expecting that exact same honesty from him this time round, and I think he'd struggle to suggest there was no interest in WBA from his perspective. I imagine he'll be down the road this week for an interview if he's nae already been tapped up.

Aye, getting latchy with the match threads folks. I will be there pre: dealing with a shiting baby post: booze probably Result: 3-1 the dons. McKenna, GMS and McLean Interesting game like, we've been a bit jaded recently, so hopefully the break will have done us good, and the speculation surrounding Deek will have calmed down. With Shinnie out, I expect just a straight Considine for Shinnie swap. I'd like to see Tansey in for O'Connor to see what he can do (although I don't see him as a player that'll set the heather alight for us, he looks very ordinary - hopefully I'll be proved wrong, but at least he's good at dead balls).

Actually, in fairness to Rocket: He doesn't say he is very good at the antithesis of putting people down at any point. I'm just trolling like, because I'm bored, so don't worry about it.

Homophobe.

Theresa May

McGhee has great interpersonal skills, which is why I'd hire him. According to wikipedia anyway.

That was my second thought. Was because I was sitting right behind it. That should be seabass's next thread: which goals were you perfectly positioned to see? Mine wid be Rico's v Torino, Zero's vs St Mirren and Maddison v the huns. Right in line with the top corner of the goals on all of them. Sort of. Anyway, I have the amazing ability to think of many at the same time. First wid be thon diving cunt McCoist and his diving though. Second wid be the 6-2 game against Hertz. Also the one you mention and fourthly - for some weird reason - Shug Robertson's two identical screamers within a few wiks of one another (hertz and Falkirk maybe? Or Dundee?). Edit: I realise this post makes no sense. It's cool. I'm aware.

The worst part about that story is the "Lord Mayor's Banquet". What a crass and unedifying way we run our country. Pompous, deifying, deferential shite. We can do so much better than this bullshit.

They could easily do that in Aberdeen. Well, not easily, due to space, but they could certainly do away with the vast majority. They should, at the very least, ditch pedestrian crossings and replace with zebras like in other countries. Instead, we have the ridiculous situation of 90% pedestrian crossings with the occasional zebra thrown in for a laugh. I was heading down Cromwell road the other day in toon and suddenly came across a pedestrian passing in front of me. I was so attuned to the (expectation of) lights that I phased out the zebra crossing that I nearly drove through. Lights just seem to attract people who floor it to the next set and slam on their breaks, rather than the more logical driving of coasting between zebra crossings that other european cities seemed to have mastered a bit better. Although, in Spain, they just drive right through both. Which would undoubtedly happen here.

Yep, I heard it. There was no mention of a complaint on the Donstalk forum, which was disappointing. The traffic was still shite this morning, but marginally better then a few weeks back and still not as good as pre-lights. As I said earlier in the thread, lights seem to be the absolute go to for traffic management these days, even thought roundabouts are far better. I'd be interested to know if it was my imagination (i.e lights are not more prevalent these days) and, if not, what caused this change? Fa kens?

But maybe they enjoy their life more? McGinn's a single guy travelling the world. Good on him. He'd have been a barely-used sub at very best for NI if they'd made the world cup had he still been playing for the dons. Hayes needed to challenge himself, and made the right choice to go and do that (as it seemed only the Tims and Cardiff were putting up the cash). He was the best player here by a long shot. That he hasn't performed doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried.

It'd have been less embarrassing if he'd just missed out all the words.

Hanlon's half decent, but no better than Berra. McKenna a long way off Scotland too. Liam Lindsay might turn out to be decent, but could be a flash in the pan. Younger Souttar too looked like he'd be good, I'd get him in sooner rather than later and try and build him for the future. Forrest is an eternally pish Scotland player and should never play again. Fraser ahead of him every single time.

Child neglector.

To be fair, I think even donsdaft would likely be more offended by the appearance of Jack than McLean.

I don't see anything McInnes based on red tv since the Hamilton game.

As an aside, the traffic at Peterculter is now much better, but still nae as good as it was with the roundabout. I believe they got a lot of complaints, and responded, which is good. "Re-instate the roonaboots ye cunts" was my complaint.

The only other point to make though is: Barry fucking Bannan The point being is that "International Class" is meaningless. You just have to be better than the shite that gets in the team. Shinnie is better than Bannan, and as is McLean on his day. Christie definitely so. Chris fucking Martin He's a horses arse. Steven Fletcher etc. I still think Boyd is correct, however he does gloss over the fact that there is a lot of dross being picked simply because they play for championship side X. To promote the game in this country by offering a clear path from the SPFL to the Scotland squad is a valuable exercise if it is only at the expense of second rate English English Championship players. From that perspective, I see no issue with the inclusion of Dandies/Hibs players, however that strategy needs to be explicit and form part of a bigger set of ideas. As it stands, Boyd's tokenism accusation is correct.

I think it could be very strongly argued that we have got to grips with it under McInnes. We needed stability and professionalism and that seems to have happened to a large® extent. Lewis, Rooney, Hayes, Jack, McGinn, Logan, Considine, Wright, Shinnie etc have all signed extended contracts when not expected to. When do we stop talking about Hibs in this regard given it is a decade (and a different era in Scottish fitba in reality) since they sold their - very good assets - for a fortune. If we'd extended McGinn, Jack, McLean or McGuire's contract for any length of time we'd have received no more than £1M for any of them. The demand isn't there for players of that level as they all had their limitations. Sevco wouldn't get £1M for Jack if they listed him now because he simply isn't worth it. If he'd kicked on in the way he should have then he could have gone to an EPL club, but he didn't. Had he, though, he would still have been contracted to us and we'd have got the transfer fee as it would happened in the last couple of years. As it stood, we effectively let him go because he was easily replaced. The only player you've named there was Fraser. It was 5 years ago. Lewis is the only player of recognisable value that could feasibly earn us a decent transfer fee and he is already had his contract extended. There are no other players who hold a value of >£1M in our team apart from Christie. Robertson, Armstrong, Gauld at Utd, Brown, Fletcher, O'Connor at Hibs were all very good players and better than anything we have produced other than Fraser. If Wright happens to be the next Fraser - and I have my doubts - then we'd have already dealt with that by signing him. You have to weigh up the cost of giving a player a new contract versus the cost of losing them. Jack's value went down in the two years additional contract that we gave him, but he arguably provided good value in that period. McLean would be a similar case if he'd signed a new deal. Neither would bring in huge fees.