RicoS321

I was at both games. Storey's is definitely a worse miss, but I didn't celebrate for several seconds before realising he'd missed unlike Iwelumo's one. His was far more costly. I definitely haven't seen worse than Storey's ever. Not even playing at Sports Village.

Worst miss in the history of football: 1

No. It's nae. There's not a bunch of flats behind their equivalent Souther. The light-blocker from their Souther, I expect, will nae be cause the same issue as ours because it's nae residential. I'm making this assumption, as the cooncil have just allowed a glass box monstrosity to be placed within half a metre of an historic building in our very own city centre. I suspect that, had that historic building been residential, the cooncil would still have found a way to pass the abomination at Marischal college.

Good result. Tight game again, but did well. They were better than hearts. Storey. Jesus. I hope we do the decent thing in the summer and let him go.

On the edge of town, like, for example, Westhill?

Good stuff min. Good stuff indeed. Some good stats in there. Before the turn of the year nobody would have expected the current return. Pro-rated the 92/92 87 goals would be 75. A good couple of wins tonight and Sunday and that could be doable, which would be spectacular. Four more wins and we'll have sealed second spot in what would be considered a pretty damn good season. Hopefully we'll get to a final ina, as we definitely deserve it (we currently have one more point than the Hibees this season too). I'll happily lose to the Tims in the league in return for a cup final victory. We deserve a couple of records to be broken given some of our huge wins, and probably deserve a cup ina.

A more applicable quote might have been: After all Aberdeen have done for Scottish fitba, I really hope the SFA give us the cup.

Not at all min, good reply to a, what appeared on re-reading, slightly aggressive post! The facilities are tied to this particular application, but there is nothing stopping them doing the training pitches without the stadium in this location or like the one they began at Balgownie. I merely meant the argument that the club need new training pitches so we must move from Pittodrie is the flawed one. It seems the second part where we disagree, and it's entirely subjective. I just can't see the club going through another Patterson-esque era and retaining crowds of over 10K shuttling to the outskirts of nowhere. I think the business case here is flawed. I say that because Aberdeen simply don't have the permanent financial advantage to ensure they remain second every season and they will at some point see a loss in form that sees them drop into the lower half of the league. Such is the nature of Scottish fitba. A prolonged period of finishing behind the huns would even see a drop of in attendances. The new stadium will give a boost, but it'll be temporary. That sounded like you saying the cooncil should back them!

Don't we? Again, it goes back to the (lack of) drawings. If we could see the elevations along with the lighting profiles, we'd know the answer. What if, in order to gain two meters in height across the entire South stand, we only need to buy the bottom flats in two of the buildings? What if that only cost £1M? What if that gained us three extra 500 seat full length rows? What if we could create a stepped stand which had height at the RDS end sloping down to the flat's end which gained us an extra 500 seats? I don't think you know. I don't think Tom knows. If I was in your position - as experts on the subject - I'd be absolutely dying to find out, dying to pick holes in the evidence and see if I could see something that they've missed. Even if it's just to flash yer skills on a public forum and show what they could have done better and eek out an extra couple of hunner seats. I find it strange that you're both so willing to accept the club's assurance. Especially as it's backed up by some pretty flakey history with regard to pushing the project, and some even flakier history regarding Milne's dealing with previous public land and the cooncil (i.e. he was utterly ruthless in pursuit of his own best interest/cash). It's such a huge omission, I'm surprised that you either of you feel confident in supporting the new stadium and feel comfortable making an informed decision. It's different for me like, I just have to remain suspicious because I don't have all the facts in front of me and if I did I could only defer to folks like you to put down all my suggestions.

You criticise - correctly - the no kingsford group for their spouting of rubbish, but then throw in a couple of bits or nonsense yersel just to even it up? First, the training facilities are not contingent on the stadium, they are two entirely separate things. This keeps getting used as a positive when it isn't. Second, you say that the location won't make a difference to you. That's entirely irrelevant and very typical of the general public to everything these days (I'll be fine, so point x doesn't matter). You're not looking at this as an individual (or you shouldn't be if you're a fan of the club) so whether you'll go, or it's closer to Garlogie's hoose, is not the point. You should be asking yourself if it's a good location for the football club, it's fans, and the wider city it is supposed to belong to. Do you honestly think it's the best location possible for maximum attendances in the coming decades (i.e. ignoring the initial boost from the new development)? Third, you tell the council to back Aberdeen FC because of what it does for the city? What does that even mean? Can you quantify that? If it does so much for the city, then surely moving it to the border of the shire is a terrible idea? Finally, you say you keep quiet on the issue, but then you say you're all for it and the council must back it and then criticise others (again, correctly) for the opinions. Which is it? You've either got an opinion or you don't. People like you (nae you though!) have constantly told me to "get behind the move" and then proceeded with the nonsense you just have. It's like you've barely even thought through the proposal. You've taken a "meh, I'll be fine, attitude" without really questioning the issues that'll see yer lifelong-supported club shifted from the city to which it belongs. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with you telling the council what they should think or do. Either have an opinion and back it up or don't bother. Indifferent, unquestioning, attitudes like yours in this case are equally as bad as those on the "no to kingsford" side. That's just my tuppence worth mind, dinna take it too seriously, I'm nae getting personal.

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.