RicoS321

Aye, tlg put the link below in the McGinn thread, but the Consi comments were far more telling. It's great that the players are thinking the same as the fans and that it doesn't go unnoticed. Considine remains unfashionable for some reason but he's had a significantly better season than Wallace and, given that we have two other left backs, provides better cover in a position that he is easily as capable as the players playing there. I keep hearing the "he's not international class" mantra too, as if there's some objective measure of that level. If there was, then surely the fact that he played at both under 20 and 21 level would suggest that he has whatever it is that defines that class. I'm very surprised that McInnes didn't mention it when he suggested Jack and McLean should be in the international squad after the Motherwell game. I'm also surprised that he didn't mention it after he scored a hat-trick the other night. It's like McInnes has only just come round to the idea that he's a good player himself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39482050

Because they're shite?

^^This.

I've done the opposite. Insch is pish these days. Although Portlethen's a ming hole ina. Given the identikit hoosing in both locations, they're pretty much the same place.

Ye see, out of all your other good points, it all comes back to this. The 12,000 capacity. That is the only important thing here. You're right, it would be a huge loss. I think you have little difficulty showing how it'd be possible for us to only have 12,000 capacity. However, do you genuinely believe that if someone came to you and asked to 16,000 seats - lets say - on Pittodrie's site that you wouldn't be able to find a way? It is my opinion - as I've mentioned - that the 12,000 figure was requested. That the appraisal for re-development of Pittodrie was specifically targeted at producing a case for re-location rather than case for re-development. That's why we've got such a low figure, that's why we have no drawings to back it up. I guarantee that if there were drawings, then qualified folks such as yersel would be able to pick holes in it and submit improvements that could really elevate the capacity. The 12,00 fugure isn't the result of trying every possible conceptual design and shape, eeking out every single square inch and additional seat. It's a result of being asked to downplay the existing site and come up with a figure that makes it ridiculous to re-develop. I don't believe otherwise, and I don't believe that anyone on here - including you - really believes otherwise. Yes, you can show how they could have arrived at 12K, but do you believe that, that is the best possible capacity in that site? Because that's why I find your arguments slightly strange. I think you know that the 12K is low, and I find it strange that you need to back-up the club on this. We're all dons fans (nae sure about 100%AK) and all want what's best for the club, and I understand that. But we are the club and this should be our decision, nae some temporary Milne custodian. We're not being given a fair representation of the existing site here. The same effort has not been made for Pittodrie as has Loirston, Kingsford and th'ither een fae years back. We should be looking at a 20K Kingsford design and, let's say, a 15K Pittodrie design that can be poured over and reviewed and asked as fans of the club to make a decision. If ever there was a call for a referendum cunty thing, this was it. This is a decision being made for us and playing on the fact that folk like a shiny new thing while deliberately playing down the alternative. This is us for the next 100 years. We're being deliberately deprived of the facts, and I'm surprised more folk on here aren't up in arms about it. There's no sentimentality from my point of view, this is a bad business decision in my opinion, based on pushing through the stubborn desires of one man.

The worst thing about the Scotland game the other week (the one they won) was hearing the commentator saying that Brown has had 15 bookings this season! Kind of put to bed the "he never gets booked" thing. Obviously he gets an extra three tackles afore being booked, but I'd - uncontroversially - say that Shinnie gets an extra kick before going in the book. I'd also say the vast majority of his 9 bookings were deserved for persistent fouling. There was one game where he got about 4 fouls against that weren't, but other than that he generally puts in a few borderline yellow challenges a game. As I said earlier, he's Scotland's answer when Brown retires again. tlg. Good points, I suppose I dinna really rate Osman that highly. He reminds me of another Draper.

Except we don't need a nasty bastard, and we haven't or shouldn't have been looking for one for a long time (I'm pretty certain Deek will agree on this). We've got a guy on 9 bookings this season and he's easily strong and good enough for the SPL. Shinnie is a ready-made replacement for Brown in the Scotland squad if the ginger cunt was even looking. We've had this shite from dons fans for years now and it's bollocks. We need good footballers, dynamic footballers, in yer face footballers and most of all quick footballers. Look at last night, we trounced Dundee with intensity and skill. Not nastiness. Draper, Hammil, Goodwin, Osman, Lasley, Davidson all constantly suggested by dons fans because they're big and strong, or dirty. The common theme? They're far too slow and should all have been playing centre half or not at all. It's this weird myth that we seem to have that our midfield isn't strong enough. We're second in the league because our midfield is very very good. Osman may be able to boot one of our players, or beat one in a challenge a few times, but he has about a tenth of the movement, one hundredth of the movement and one thousandth of the skill of Jack and Shinnie. He simply wouldn't be a replacement, because we don't need that type of player and never have. That was evidenced by a very similar O'Connor playing there, evidenced by a very slow Arneson playing there, Touzani. Compare those guys with players like Heikennen, Severin Richardson etc. and they understandably look shite. You mention Bisconti? We was great because he was all-over-the-shop, high-intensity and strong, but he was massively let down by because he was a nasty bastard and a liability at times (getting caught out of position as well as stupid bookings). Deek will have picked up Tansey because he fits the nill in his opinion (I don't know enough about him). That bill is someone to replace Jack. That means hard-working, can get up and down the pitch all day, very good on the ball, always available for a pass, excellent positioning, always aware when others are out of position and willing to cover, doesn't fly into challenges, slows down opposition attacks by ushering the player away from goal or getting a foot in rather than selling himself, being quick enough not to just get passed around, not giving away stupid freekicks and generally being reliable and sensible. There's perhaps one or two games a season where a physical team (usually on a shitey pitch) who are really up for it get us on a bad day when we're either tired or nervous (hertz in cup) or whatever and they bully us and beat us. For every one of those there are a dozen games where we win because we play high-intensity, skillful possession football and simply play round the shitey lumps who try to kick us. We are second because we've sacrificed hoofers for players who are good at fitba. That's the way to win games and that's the way it should be. Incidentally, the boy Barton is a far better fitba'r than Osman. Although I'd also question whether he was quite mobile enough too.

Great player. Better than Hanley. Better than Berra. Better than Wallace. Better defender than Mulgrew. Also one of my favourite dandies.

In a panini with cheese and chilli jam. Awesome stuff. Better than actual haggis I'd say.

No you can't.

Stop it. That's nae funny.

To answer ye baith. I'm asking why people were for it, not necessarily why it was better or not for the club. I don't think traffic on Wellington Road was really an issue, given you can go up Wellington Road, up past Northsound or out the A90 and back in past the Loch and the bypass for the teuchters. Also, I don't suppose folk gave a fuck whether it would cost £2M extra or whatever, when you're dealing with such a large figure anyway I don't believe it'd matter to a supporter. Maybe I'm just forgetting how many people were in favour of Loirston? Maybe a lot of folks were all for it. It just seems there is a lot more support for something that is demonstrably worse, albeit not by much. Could it be, perhaps, that folk were broken by the Loirston plan and resigned to the idea of the new stadium. So much so that when it eventually got scrapped they were just annoyed and willing to accept anything that came in its place? Some sort of stadium-fatigue-syndrome. That's it. I've diagnosed it. You're all sick fucks. Apart from 100%AK, who is eminently sensible.

But it's nae a much better location though, is it? Perhaps for you, but for the benefit of the club and the city it definitely isn't. I didn't like Loirston, but it's much closer to the centre of town, is actually in Aberdeen and had the potential to be accessed by train. The rest of the factors remain even (bus journeys etc). Given the bypass, it would have added virtually nothing to the journey from those from the North (10 minutes at most along the Southern leg, probably less) and those from the South ten minutes better off. Really the only difference is the train station potential, which is fairly significant in favour of Loirston I'd say. It must be more than that. Perhaps the training facilities all being shown in one shiny new development, even though the plan was to build in another location? Perhaps they couldn't see envisage the bypass? As I say, it doesn't make much sense to me, I dinna get it.

This has to be a replacement for Jack I reckon. Similar type of player. I'd argue that Tansey is not in the same league, but then I don't see him regularly and only for a shite ICT team. He's scored plenty against us too. Welcome aboard loon. I haven't been this excited about a signing since Paul Quinn.

It is easy. It wasn't on the table because they couldn't have an honest and open discussion about it without hysteria ensuing. The currency discussion in the last indy ref was the most ill-informed, shouty debate about nothing in particular ever. I think the SNP (because it was SNP, not the indy campaign) thought it'd be too much for folk to get their heads round and too big a change that would freak people out. If one good thing has come out of the last few years, I think it is that the everyone realises the Euro is pash, and that the GBP option is flakey at best and that a Scottish currency is now the best option. I think they can announce it nice and early (as soon as they get the date) and get any awkward questions and misunderstandings out in the open. If they start any GBP-sharing nonsense, I reckon I'd struggle to even vote.

Why did you put fake news in inverted commas? Are you suggesting it isn't fake news or it is? I'm confused.

Jack? Fucking hell, you're either really fond of O'Connor or really hate Jack. He'd be a terrible replacement for Jack.

Poof.

Sorry, I was meaning that there was a greater support for Kingsford with the fans than Loirston, before Loirston was at the canning stage. It was my understanding that Loirston was never not an option, it's just that the club would have had to pay for a piece of land that previously they wouldn't have. I'm not sure if that would have made it cost prohibitive or just that they didn't want to pay for land.

Nope, it was 3.4 miles form the train station uphill, which is why I was against it too. A station at Altens would have helped mind you. It was equally as accessible by vehicle as Kingsford (given both would/will have been completed post bypass). If a station existed then Loirston would have been better than Kingsford, but still nae great. It's weird, as it didn't seem that there was nearly much support for Loirston as there is for Kingsford. I can only assume it's the northen shire supporters that are pro-Kingsford, although it seems stupid given the bypass would mean probably only an additional ten minutes from Loirston. Or maybe everyone has been worn down? Can anyone on here suggest a reason why Kingsford is better?

I'd rather neither. Although a Scottish Pound would give us ways round the EU surplus requirements at least, so I could cope with EU membership. I'd rather just have access to the market with free movement.

A Scottish pound is no use with the EU controls over surplus requirements. If they ditch that then we should join. Otherwise we're missing the most relevant control we could have as an independent country.

Don't be a dick. You were accused, by one person, miles down the thread. Why can't you just ignore it and raise some valid points backed up with evidence. You refuse to answer simple questions with evidence-based responses, you just repeat shite. I suspect you or I are not a great judge of what Yule has done/not done for the club. The club appear to be better at signing folks (everything kept quiet), but he may not be involved in that side of things. The customer service has improved in my opinion, but that could be down to the general manager. We fall way short in areas like catering but that contract has been in place for some time. We don't appear to be significantly better at marketing, but we've not been in a downward slide since McInnes took over so it's difficult to judge. He may, or may not, have brought in the investment from the Donalds and may or may not have helped facilitate the bank loan repayment. We don't know, you don't know. He may have brokered the signing fee for McLean or maybe he didn't. I'm not sure what his targets are, and I don't believe you know either. He appears to be just a competent business man much like any other and the club don't appear to have made any wild errors under his stewardship. The club is in a much better position than when he arrived and I think it would be very harsh to assume that none of that was down to him.

I didn't say Euro, I said EU!

What do you mean a viable method of creating our own currency? They could create one tomorrow if they wanted (as could I). It's very simple. The fear-mongering this time round - and it will be fear-mongering - will be around currency valuation and mass-inflation. It will be presented with ignorance and repeated ad nauseam with ignorance, and we'll never get a true reflection of the debate. I can't see a situation where the Independence campaign doesn't put forward a Scottish currency though, it would be stupid not to. That will be Scotland's best option too. Like you I suspect, I wouldn't want Scotland to join the EU.