OxfordDon

Ach no, that was a quick pic nabbed from the BBC Food site for illustration. Mine looks much better

The concrete section of the Berlin Wall was approx. 65 miles long in total. 1962/65= 30.18 Therefore, Trump Wall = 30 Berlin Walls.

Red onions caramelised in coriander and balsamic vinegar, immense. Roast them in chunks in the oven for 30 minutes with fennel bulbs, ground coriander seeds, balsamic and some olive oil, caramelise some sugar in a frying pan, dump the onion/fennel in the sugar, chuck in a ton of grana padano or parmesan cheese, stuck some puff pastry on top, give it another 20 minutes in the oven, and it will turn into this: Tarte tatin, mitherfecker.

This, coupled with the fact that in the last few years the bar has been significantly raised for anyone looking to break into the first team. When we were shite and at the wrong end of the table, we could afford to blood lots of youth (and promptly lose the most promising to other clubs). Now we are consistently 2nd, the pressure on maintaining that position means youth players have to be up to a much higher level to take the risk on giving them game time in place of one of our regulars. The return of the reserve league would be a big step towards mitigating this. It's utterly beyond me why it went away in the first place.

I saw PMQ too, and whilst i am no fan of May, the pedant in me feels the need to point out that i can pass condolences to your friends and family for your lack of understanding of the definition of condolences, but that doesn't therefore mean that yer deid. The criticism only emerged because the DUP tried scoring points on it later on. Amazed that Corbyn didn't make more of the enormous u-turn May made over the white paper though.

I assume this is the reasoning behind Christie - McInnes has had his fingers burnt before leaving things to the last minute. I have no real complaints as long as it isn't to mitigate us losing someone other than Maddison (who i hope comes back up north anyway).

I want a 1 seater stadium with a comfy armchair and a butler. Sod the rest of you

Maybe we're getting a new left back even better than Shinnie

Yes. And welcome

The thing that generates additional revenue is additional customers, more fans. What attracts more fans is a good product. Over 20 years ago, as 2IC to then chairman Ian Donald, Stewrat Milne promised that the product should always be the priority. This is how you get a good product: - 1. Recruit a good manager 2. He recruits good players 3. Players and manager work towards success Milne has never recruited a good manager and football was never his priority. So it's no surprise that we've never been close to realising potential let alone being successful for over two whole decades now. It's like his long term agenda for relocation means he can put the product on hold and this is a lie. Delayed gratification and deferring anything resembling success on the field is not dependent primarily on the stadium. It comes with focusing on the football. (extended political tangent removed) It is not as simple as that these days. You need the facilities in order to make good money from home games. Hearts are selling out most home games but because Tynecastle is basically 3 soon to be 4 sheds or bus shelters with little hospitality facilities their turnover is far less than ours. Even when their new stand goes up, they will still have less facilities than the current Pittodrie and far less than our proposed new stadium. The opportunity to increase our revenue with this new stadium is massive and should put us ahead of the likes of the Edinburgh clubs for years I can assure you that it is as simple as more customers = more revenue. You took one line from my post. I also said that it wasn't PRIMARILY stadium-dependent. Of course improved facilities will attract more customers and everything i.e. commercial sponsorship that goes with this. But the product is all important, which was the main thrust of my post. Sorry, but i had to nest this lot so i could read the argument. Anyway, RS i get your argument that the stadium shouldn't be used as an excuse to put improvement of the team on hold in the meantime (and i also agree that the product on the pitch is the whole point of the club), but i don't think that's happening. Aberdeen as a team has improved massively in the last 5 years, as have our crowds up to a threshold. which leads to my second point of: The fans. The new stadium is quite clearly a long term plan, and i think the board have quite rightly acknowledged that there is an upper limit of how many fans Aberdeen is actually going to attract week in week out. More fans = more money, yes, but i would argue that historically the attendance figures have shown that there is a definite limit to how many folk will come and watch each week, regardless of how well the team does. This is because we are a finite population across a specific geographical area, and a fairly constant percentage of them will never come every week or, shockingly, never be interested in football at all. And before anyone mentions the League Cup final and "but where are the 45K?", i'd say that number represents something closer to the TOTAL number of fans that turn up across the weeks, plus emigrants like me that can't trek back up to Aberdeen just to watch someone kick a bit of leather and have to save it for the one-offs. If we've hit our upper limit of fans, then it seems sensible to try and generate new revenue streams, and the new stadium is quite clearly planned around that whilst accommodating our maximum weekly fanbase. Product is all-important, but i don't see any evidence that the stadium is anything but sensible for improving said product in the long term, or that it is hampering improvement in the short term. TL:DR version: fans = money AND money = product improvement BUT number fans = maximum new stadium = more money AND more money = product improvement later BUT new stadium DOESNOT = no product improvement now (this site doen't like mathematical symbols)

Great stuff Could also be taken as a bit of a positive indicator to help quell the fears of overly pessimistic fans - player decisions on extensions often rest on whether their mates are sticking around too...

True mathematics geeks would formulate it as [font=arial]"?(2a?)"[/font] I'll get ma labcoat edit: ach, screw you website and yer lack of tolerance for mathematical symbols, it was a shit joke anyway

4-0 McGinn

Well, i gave you one and now you're back to 0. Maybe you're being stealth-durranted by an obsessive stalker

3-0 Rooney pen

2-0 McGinn

1-0 Rooney. About time.

Hemmin Tom, all these rational, well articulated posts and you've nae even a single Simmie to yer name? Cannae be having that.

Christ, I forgot for a moment that this was Magoo's team. Massive capitulation by Well in the last 5 minutes, FT 2-1 to Sevco. I guess magoo doesnt want to blow his chances of getting o,hallaran on loan.

Mwahahaha. 1-0 well-sevco, at home to sevco

Yesterday: Record runs story saying there will be no Sevco signings this window as they have no money and would need to sell to get some. Fans go apeshit. Today: Record runs story saying that some big team might want to give Sevco lots of money for one of their players, allowing them to buy players after all. Fans appeased.

Explains why he got recalled at any rate, i guess it wasn't really our decision if Bristol had a buyer for him. Not that he will be missed much

You don't need to see the plans but some of the smartest people i know have said they are great plans and it will be the greatest stadium you've ever seen, and we'll build a wall around it and make Kingswells pay for it.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what McInnes says in that article?

But, but, it's a link pointing to a comment sharing a post highlighting a tweet about a remark overheard from a nearby conversation. How can it not be true?