RicoS321

He was decent. Still looks uncomfortable on the left side coming out with the ball (passed it straight out of play once in the first half, otherwise was fine), but given Motherwell never pressured us at all at the back it was easy for him. In the first 10-15 minutes him and Taylor got caught out a few times not being in line with each other, but they quickly sorted that out. They both won pretty much everything in the air, and he had a couple of decent tackles. Much more comfortable on the ball than Taylor or Reynolds obviously, but I would still have Reynolds or Considine in that left side role ahead of him. For me, he's got to be in the right side of defence or nothing. I'd have him in ahead of Taylor just now too. Taylor didn't put a foot wrong at the weekend really, but O'Connor is just a better player. A few folk have mentioned that Taylor is in there for set pieces, but given we've had about 8,000 corners this season and Taylor has only scored two goals (he's missed a lot of chances too), which is the same as O'Connor, I think that is over-stated. I can see why Taylor is there to be honest, he's strong in the air and quick to get back in, but I prefer players who can actually play football and O'Connor can. I think he'll have to be patient though as we're defending well at the moment. Hopefully McInnes is on top of the situation though as it would be a shame to see him go. It's a bit like being the sub goalie at the moment, he just has to bide his time and take his chance when it comes.

I wasn't having a go at O'Connor, I was simply pointing out that he's given the benefit of any doubt because he's new, and held in higher regard than Considine, which was unfair (on Considine). I think he should be in the team ahead of Taylor, but I think it's close too. Rocket, his performance in the final was terrible, he was at fault for three of the goals and every time he emerged from the defence on his left foot he simply couldn't cope (the same against der hun in the Pittodrie match when he played there). He was just very poor at that side of the defence, because he is uncomfortable on his left. It was very much the manager's fault for playing him there, I don't think that is in question. As for Reynolds, he's always been shite with the ball at his feet but good at reading the game, decent in the challenge and quick to get across and cover. I thought we have seen all those attributes in his performances since christmas. I don't think we have the partnership anymore (Reynolds and Anderson), but I'd say Reynolds of late has been back to close to his best. However, that's arguable of course, but my point was that folk are still judging him on his early season and last season's performances which he's moved on from considerably. His recent performances are night and day from last seasons and I think we should begin to accept that perhaps he just lost form as many players do.

Fine, thanks.

Interesting. I think there's something in it (or at least I understand why he feels that way). Nothing to do with being a local loon like, more just player familiarity. Considine got abuse for a while too. New players get a good while to prove themselves, which isn't afforded to those that have been there for a while. You set high standards, and everyone expects you to maintain them. There are very few players who go through their careers performing consistently to their best. Hayes had a pish spell when he first arrived, McLean, McGinn, Rooney hasn't had a great season, Logan went through a couple of months and even Shinnie has struggled a few times this season. The familiarity problem occurs when folk dredge up the past, which I suspect happens quite a lot for Jack. He had a poor season last season, but he started this season really well before getting injured and taking a few weeks to regain form with varying partners alongside him - he wasn't given much slack in that period from the fans (I suspect a glance on here would get the general opinion of his performances), who clearly had last season's Jack at the forefront of their minds. It just allows a bit of bias, or perhaps we're just better informed, for long-standing players. In my opinion, Jack has had many more good games for the dons than bad and has had a very good season overall. An example to back up the above would be O'Connor. Lauded as an excellent defender when he came in, and still highly regarded. Compare to Considine who still seems to be judged (not on here) by some of his early-career mistakes in games (mainly against the Tims). Yet Considine is - in my opinion - a much better all round footballer than O'Connor. O'Connor was afforded, by the fans, an abject cup final performance where he was all over the shop yet was still held in higher regard than Considine at that time (not since it has to be said, because he hasn't featured). It just seems that we're not particularly forgiving at times when players are either learning or on a poor run of form. I wouldn't say that familiarity breeds contempt, but it's something along those lines. McGinn is still being classed as lazy despite an excellent season so far. Reynolds had an excellent spell before his hernia but is classed as a liability, despite there being an obvious return to previous form. McLean was still getting criticised for weeks after his last consecutive poor performance. We (I include me, obviously) seem to be far quicker to accept a player is losing form, than we are to accept a return to form. Of course, all of this could be simply explained to the loon (because he is just a young loon still). The bottom line is that his form had dropped, and we - the fans - sat through it and watched him lose it. If he goes to another club and plays well before having a poor spell, he'll quickly see that he won't be getting abuse for being a local loon. It's just what paying fans do. Or maybe he just wants a change and needs something to convince himself why he's leaving; that's fine too.

A double fuck? It must be serious.

I think he might actually. He certainly suited our more direct approach at the weekend. He gets a lot more space in that type of game and is quick to get onto loose balls. Anyway, academic. Will this type of offer from down South turn Jack's head? If Pawlett is good enough for MK Dons, then I'd have thought Jack could happily aim higher. If Pawlett is getting an improved salary will Jack see it as an opportunity too. I had hopes (nae really) he'd go on to become an EPL player rather than just leave us for a mediocre Championship side, but he might think that type of chance may not come anymore. I could see him being tempted away.

Aye. He signed a deal with us when he was worth something, so that was good. Shown decent loyalty, so should get a decent send off. MK Dons is what we aspire to these days anyway with our new out-of-town off-the-peg stadium......

Is there any evidence that it will reduce congestion? It seems a little flawed. I can't drive at 70 on most of my journeys because of traffic, so raising the speed limit would be irrelevant (I rarely drive on motorways either). Also, what increases congestion on my journey is the fact that folk hare up to the visible traffic jams ahead accelerating to reach them quicker. Anyway, if I'm ever in a position where I can do 90mph, I just do it. Expecially through Garlogie, it's an ace long straight for speeding.

To be fair, both teams were at it. Must be impossible to ref a game like that. Cunts diving all over the shop.

Holy pishflaps. Chose the right time to watch my first minutes of champions league fitba this season. Just turned it on because on my laptop BT sport have a new player so I wanted to check out streaming speed. That was pretty spectacular.

It's a bit HR-y for me like. I think it ignores an important point. I work for quite a few companies who've all done their restructuring. The common theme is not that the employees don't like the new strategy, it's that there is no strategy. Management is so far removed from the work being done that the only strategy is: "lose headcount" and "pay less". That gets passed down to a middle management, who've been promoted to their role to prevent them doing damage in a role that required them to actual work. They simply don't have the ability to suggest meaningful change, so there's usually a powerpoint re-org and then a heap of work thrown onto those who keep the place running. I'm constantly surprised how companies are strategically inept, and make no attempt to go through a process of constant change. Departments are allowed to grow exponentially with massively decreasing returns and increasing inefficiency. Empires are built and processes consistently over-complicated. More and more layers appear between CEO and product. It's exactly the opposite of how a company should be run, but it's rewarded internally and at investor level. It's weird phenomenon where growing your cost base is seen as successful. My non-oil industry experience is quite limited, but I don't believe it is just an oil industry thing (it definitely is an oil industry thing though).

Ach, that's a shame, always liked Pawlett. I can't help but think that with a little bit better management could have seen a lot more out of him. Although it's perhaps unfair to expect too much time and effort devoted to one player. MK Dons will be signing a player who - judging by his appearances for us - is physically unable to complete 90 minutes. I'll take an interest in his career, and wish him all the best.

We'll just believe you... the whole objections thing is a farce on these types of development anyway. An objection should only be allowed to be registered once, with duplicates of the same objection just up-voted or similar. Number of up-votes should have little to no relevance. Something is either a valid objection or not, regardless of how many agree. Anyway, you've been pretty quiet on the loanee updates since McKenna got sent off for a murderous challenge on McGinn against hibees last week. That was an amazing challenge.

Tree-fucking. One of nature's most beautiful sights.

Don't shop in supermarkets then. I don't, and get great tasting food. Nae hun flag mind you.

What's it called when someone has both a cock and a fud? That's what that tree is. That's what true photography is about.

I'm assuming that the Tims will be gloating like fuck over the fact that one of their players was reported to be soliciting offers at £10M greater than the value of the huns. I'd have thought that Murray park and Iprix would be worth a decent wedge like. And with Barrie Mackay worth at least £15M, I'd have thought £30M wouldn't be far off.

I'm going to give a reason... I think that Pawlett has benefited from our reduced squad size. He was only really getting a 10-15 minute spell here and there earlier in the season, with chances having to be shared out between him and Burns (Monakana etc in previous years). Given Pawlett's game is as much about movement as it is impact runs on the ball, he really needs at least 20 minutes or more to actually make an impact. He needs a lot of time to get even a few touches of the ball. That results in him charging about like a headless chicken if he's only getting 10-15 minutes here and there. I think also that anytime he starts a game, he knows that he's not going to finish it. He looked perfectly fit yesterday and was still causing problems for Thistle yet you always knew he was going to be the first one subbed. It's like there's an issue with his fitness or something. Either way, I think that must surely play on his mind during games, as it's like he tries to hard at times, tearing about off the ball instead of making measured runs. Perhaps his contract running out has focused his mind a little, and I don't have a problem with that. I think folk expect footballers to be different to the rest of us in some way, but that's probably unrealistic. Folk get a bit stale in a job quite often and take things for granted but would never get accused of laziness or just being after the money. Hopefully he's found himself again as it were. I think he offers something different to our other players in that role so long may it continue. Edit: just realised ED post much the same, nevermind. Interesting to note that Pawlett hasn't played 90 minutes in 2 seasons now. Even 3 seasons ago he only completed 6 games. That's nuts. It surely must play on his mind.

Dinna have time to respond to everything on yer previous points, so will just give ye a quick reply. I'm saying my personal impression of Ian Wood was he was a nice chap the times I met him. The points I made about him the public being railroaded and repulsive monetary intimidation were aimed at the press rather than Ian Wood. I'm suggesting that the press put the £50M front and centre and the press that presented the bias view. I have no evidence to back up the notion that Ian Wood himself applied pressure, so no reason to accuse him of that. The bit yer missing though is that the public did vote for the Wood project to go ahead. There was a referendum in the city, which returned in favour of it. Once that had been decided, they had a further consultation to choose the design - run by ACSEF (I think that was their name) - where the public chose the wrong design which was ignored. The project was still destined to go ahead until the Labour (current) administration got majority elected in the following local election and they put in a caveat about cost over-runs and initial funding. I suspect that a re-elected majority SNP local government would attempt to re-instate the project. Anyway, I'd thank the Labour majority if it wasn't for yer point above. I assumed that the rejection of the UTG project was because they cared about the city. The muse development you mention above shows that the UTG rejection was nothing but a shameful political act to win power. I have it on reasonable authority that a few departments in Marischal College have been approached about relocating to the cunt-box across the road to cover up the fact that we're due to take on the rent for lack of occupancy. Like DD, I haven't met a single person who thinks it was an acceptable piece of building.

I have no problem with Ian Wood at all, and I think the statement about jealousy is pretty lazy and typical of the type of accusation made when discussing his propositions - basically shutting down rational debate (I'm not accusing you of this on this occasion). I've met him and he seems like a nice chap, I have met a couple of his sons and they also seem like nice guys. The council could have taken his £50M - and indeed would have if he could have provided further guarantees - but it would have involved building his vision for UTG and spending a further £90M of public funds and passing a common good into private ownership (no problem with this per se). Indeed from what I remember the council agreed to go ahead if a further £20M of funds could be secured and that cost over-runs would not be covered by public funds. Donsdaft uses the term rail-roaded, and I agree to an extent. As soon as the £50M was put on the table, the onus was on the council to make the additional funds available. The local press dived on it with it's usual biased hysteria. The £50M was dangled above the masses who in turn became unable to see beyond it. The question was never about £50M, it was entirely irrelevant to anything. The only question that the public had to answer was "do you want to spend £90M (plus overruns) on the granite web development in UTG". Instead, the £50M was placed front and centre, with hysterical promises to send the money to Africa (that still hasn't happened) in less it's taken up immediately. That type of monetary intimidation I find repulsive. However, not as repulsive as I found the classless, uninspiring, unnatural and destructive design that was proposed (indeed, it didn't even win the public vote, which was ignored because the public picked the most sympathetic option as opposed to the one with maist shops). The questions that should have been asked, such as: what is the £90M+ of public spending going to be diverted from; what sort of chaos will be caused by transporting such huge volumes of concrete into the city centre; how likely are cost overruns; does the city centre need more vehicles coming into it (there was a car park in the design); does the city have capacity for more shops; what will be the effects on existing shopping centres; could we develop the whole of union st, st nicholas house area and beyond with the money; how much would a sympathetic enhancement of UTG cost and what would that look like. I could go on for days with unasked - thus unanswered - questions. It was boiled down to "£50M min, progress min" and that's where the debate didn't begin and then ended. I don't have an issue with Ian Wood's offer, indeed I can only take it at face value as a genuinely nice gesture as I have no evidence to the contrary. As I said in my post - and where it compares to Richard Branson to a tee - is that a person's monetary status has been thrust into a debate where it wasn't required and given undeserved weight over the idea itself. The classic "well he didnae become a billionaire by being stupid, so he must be right" that is pervasive in UK society. He was putting in £50M because he happens to have £50M, thus excluding others (not necessarily deliberately mind) from the opportunity to have their say. I don't like Ian Wood's taste in garden design might be a simpler way to put it. That often resulted in accusations of jealousy, or being backward looking, but it never resulted in someone telling me why building shops was forward looking or progressive (because it fuckin isn't). That our local tabloids can't do nuance, and are beholden to money (especially when said money is heavily relied on through advertising revenue - see Trump golf course) is of far greater concern then anything Ian Wood could ever do. They deliberately misled the public into believing it was Wood's design or nothing, which was never the case. Again, that isn't Ian Wood's fault, just us putting too much faith in money.

I believe the remainder is being spent on parking wardens. You make some good points Jagerdeen, I'm pretty much in agreement. They could at least have created an "Energy" centre, rather than O&G specific. I'm still struggling to see how we reconcile the giant elephant in the room that is screaming "due to thon deal you signed in Paris, you can only burn 80% of the reserves you currently have" with the continued push for exploration. It's the topic that can't be discussed it seems. That's not the environmentalist in me talking, just logic. I'm surprised that a guy with strong links to an oil service company would promote the idea of a technology centre funded by the public purse that said service company will ultimately profit from in the future. When are we going to stop the British tradition of fawning over cunts with lots of money before showering them with more of it for no logical reason? Ian Wood is just a North East Richard Branson, isn't he?

Interesting. What would you have spent it on and why do you think that this particular idea was undeserving? Genuinely, I'm not being critical.

I'll be there. 11112

There has been a lot of concern surrounding Deek's hunnery. It's nae quite religious balls, but it's nae exactly rational either.

Fit's a CPD? Crap Pitch Distributor. Cunt of a Pitch, Derek. etc