RicoS321

I think it's that last part that we'll not see. As Rocket pointed out a few weeks back, he seems to lack the ability to shoot. Not just that he's missing the target or whatever, but that he doesn't seem to have the technique. Stockley did, but he couldn't do the part of the game that Cosgrove does, which was actually more important to us at the time. If we're playing a 2 then that shouldn't really matter normally, but the fact that our other striker (i.e the one that does the finishing) doesn't exist is a gaping hole in our plan. Here's hoping Wilson can add that to his game - he seems more creative than deadly too.

I think that we'll get an earlyish kick off at hampden, probably about 13:30, leaving plenty time to get there. With the other game at 16:00 at Murrayfield. What a fuck about for the SPFL to get their fucking act in gear. Wankstains.

and the championship....

Classic Daily Mail article. Bereft of logic and fact. Before we all start getting outraged, could someone work out the actual split their entitled to of the full TV pot, versus the amount they'd get if they just shared out Championship only tv revenues? For example, if they currently get 5% of the existing TV pot, then they'd be entitled to about £1.1M per season versus the £700K they'd get if all this money went to them. Basically, if they get anything more then 3.5% of the existing TV deal, then they're quids in. Would it have been that difficult for this spastic newspaper to look it up and tell us? Last year they were given 12.05% of £23.7M prize fund. If that was the same this season then they'll get 12.05% of £24.4M, or £2.94M. Versus £700K. I think I know what I'd take.

Yes, they could. I think that they maybe did for the Tims game a couple of seasons ago. They paid for them all in advance to make sure we got the 50-50 split. I'm sure there were still a thousand or so to sell with a week to go? Could be wrong. They should pay for the 50% and then sue the SPFL for the balance of any not sold. Actually, I'd prefer that the club told them to go fuck their competition and just refused to play.

Why is this still a thing? I thought that the default was 50-50 these days and that the club decide to return their allocation if they don't believe they can sell it. Looks like the press trying to move the story on from their fucked up semi-final day arrangements.

It would be as hollow as winning the league when you have over ten times the budget of your nearest competitor in a sport where there is a direct correlation - and near one-to-one link - between league position and spending on wages. I agree though, it would be hollow. I'd far rather that AFC got together with the other clubs and fought for a fairer distribution of prize funds so that there was a more level playing field on day one. That would involve AFC, too, handing back its European funds too for the greater benefit of the league. What AFC did when Sevco went tits up was to try and take their place. We'll see this season, and in the coming years, how short sighted that was by our chairman. I enjoy the fact that our shite signings this season have made us a worse team than Hearts and probably Hibs, and their signings given them the edge. To me, that's what fitba is about. I'd rather that Motherwell, St Johnstone, Hamilton and so on were given a better distribution of the income so that we can get better as a league rather than just individuals. To me, the scum are no different to the rich kids that run our country through the makings of their own inherited fortune. Fitba is often a good mirror of life, with Scottish fitba an excellent illustration of how money begets money.

I think it's quite obvious. The league is setup in such a way that winning it disproportionally increases the chances of winning it again. As I said, winning the league would be a 1 in 40 year anomoly (at least, I'm projecting on current trend of 33 years). That's a structural/systemic issue, nothing less. It can be clearly demonstrated to have worsened since the advent of the Champions league and/or Europa League. It can clearly be demonstrated by the financial disparity caused only by prize funds. It can clearly be demonstrated by using data from the English leagues based on league position vs money spent, which I've linked on here before (95% correlation I think). I'm saying I don't care what McInnes thinks because it's irrelevant not because I don't care about his aspirations for AFC. If McInnes went into every season believing he could win the league like you suggest Levein does and Lennon does (I doubt either of them do) then it would still not fix the systemic issue of our league setup and the chances of us winning would still be 1 in 40 years.

I don't care what Lennon, Levein or McInnes think I'm simply stating a fact. The league is set up for one (maybe now pushing toward two again) to win. No amount of enthusiasm or optimism will change that. That a single team will one day defy the odds is not what I'm arguing. At present that looks like a one in forty year chance which is where my issue lies. Agreed. We (AFC) don't even state that there is an issue. I'm not blaming the referees (especially not the refs) or the authorities, I'm very much in the "if AFC don't do something why should the authorities". Take the recent cup schedule. Our statement didn't pinpoint a solution and it offered zero defiance. It was a meaningless whinge, much like our Devlin statement. I'm not partisan when it comes to AFC, I think we're way too compromising. To the extent that we're compromised. I was too young and pished to gie a fuck then. I do remember hating the idea of moving to Kingswells. I do remember the EE and such like showing exciting pictures, but I think even they might have been hostile to it. I remember reading the red final and their associated hatred of Milne's ideas (and Milne from memory). In hindsight, I don't see any evidence to understand his motivations. I just think that his ideas are shite and they'll be the end of AFC.

The league isn't over, you're just a pessimist. The league is set up to be won by only two of our competitors. It is over before the league starts. You're a betting man, just look at the odds. If the next Fergie is available, we can't afford him anymore and the tragic evidence of the last 20 years shows that McInnes is the best we can hope for. My aspirations are all political. I want to be part of a competitive league where everyone can win it. I want AFC to be shite some seasons and ace the next. I don't want us to buy the opponents best players anymore than I want the Tims to buy ours. I want our club to challenge the very heart of the institution and tear them to shreds. I want AFC to challenge the european setup, the Scottish setup, the TV contracts, the voting rights, the wage gaps, the share of wealth, the share of coverage, the BBC coverage and I want them to challenge Mikey Devlin's red card decision with pinpoint accuracy rather some shite about VAR. I want them to say we don't need gimmicky shite like VAR. I want them to forcefully and publicly refuse to play at 12pm on a Sunday in the semi-final of a cup. I want them to take a fucking stand for once. I want them to not move to West fucking hill. Those are the things that actually matter, the fitba can come and go like a manager as far as I'm concerned, because to me that's what fitba - and all sport - is about.

The whole bits of paper thing stemmed from the EPL. One manager did it, now they all do it. I suspect it's because they can't trust a player to communicate with others. Scott Brown obviously saw that thing doing the rounds on twitter a few weeks ago, where a player stole the bit of paper of an opponent and ripped it up. Some game on the continent from memory. Like everything, one person does it and the rest follow suit. It's just fucking littering as far as I'm concerned.

It's not relevant, because it's made up shite. A complete lie. We didn't play with seven defenders. We played a very orthodox 5 defenders to match Hibs' formation, with two of those tasked with attacking. We also played with 3 very high attacking players, hence surrending the midfield to Hibs. We've been crying out for McInnes to try two up front for ages and when he does he gets accused of being defensive. We might have been shite against Hibs, but we weren't defensive as could be seen by the gaping holes left anytime they intercepted a crap pass out from defence (happened a lot). Anyway, I'd go more defensive against the Tims. I don't think GMS playing high up really worked, I think he's more suited to playing the wide role in front of the back four in either a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1. We got good success last game of last season with the 4-2-3-1 so I'd go with something akin to that. ---------------Lewis----------------- Logan---Devlin---McKenna---Consi -----------Ball------Shinnie--------- --McGinn-----Wilson--------GMS--- ---------------Cosgrove------------- Reluctant to play either McGinn or Cosgrove as they've been poor, but due to Ferguson and Wright being out I'd go with it. Considine shades it over Lowe for me in a 4 as I think Lowe's defending has been very lax since joining and I think if Considine plays the way he did against them last season, and Burnley this, he'll be fine. I don't think we've got our answer in midfield to allow Shinnie to play there yet and I don't think Lowe is our answer - or a better answer than Considine - at left back. If we go with a 5 then obviously I'd have Lowe. 2-0 the dons. Wilson and May (sub)

Zero evidence for the police having said that at all. He won't have spoken to a police officer, or anyone at the SFA for this enlightened piece of information that he made up. We do hate the huns, obviously.

But seriously, he gets it spot on. Absolutely spot on. With a good bit of anger and feeling too. I hadn't realise that the contract only stipulates that games have to be at Hampden if one of the scum are playing. Once again, we've explicitly written something into the rules (it's not the rules per say, but the contract effectively makes it a rule) based on the requirements of two teams. Staggering.

He'll give himself a heart attack.

I think that you're maybe giving McInnes a little much credit there, but I see yer point. From memory, he didn't really get involved until discussing it at some sort of AFC dinner where he mentioned the issue with training all over the shop (I think he made a comment or two about the stadium, but nae really anything convincing). To my mind he didn't really didn't add much to the debate as the dons fans had already seen their shiny new thing and didn't need convincing for some bizarre fucking reason. McInnes certainly helped seal the deal, but as did the fact that we were playing well on the park I think, which could also be credited to him. I think that dons fans had been told for so long that we needed to move (long before McInnes) that they've just come to believe and accept it so Westhill was easy for them in the end. McInnes probably couldn't give a shite either way as long as the training facility is built (I'm more than happy for a training facility to be built in Westhill). Either way, he's doing the job his bosses have asked him to do top the best of his ability, and in a job with such a high turnover you've got to do what you've got to do. He's nae a dons fan and I wouldn't expect him to know the first thing about moving to Westhill so I'd be surprised if may dons fans put their faith in his opinions on it.

Most importantly, fit time do the boozers open? At kick-off time?

I suppose it's worth broadcasting because of the enormity of the position that Kavanaugh is going for. I have sympathy for your point of view though. The point is, though, that he's clearly lying. The problem is two fold as I see it, the first point that there is no "safe space" for him to come forward and admit to what happened and apologise. This has resulted in a guy lying to save his precious career and a woman forced into publicly taking to the stand to relive what seems to be a genuinely harrowing experience for her. It shouldn't need to be this way. We should have an alternative to this that doesn't take the me too movement too far in the other direction. This won't make it easier for woman to come forward and get some "closure" or whatever and it will serve to push these types of incident further below ground as men seek to hide their part in them - it's self defeating. We need a middle ground where people can admit to what they've done and both parties can feel that they won't have their entire future's ruined by something that happened in their teens. Something that might actually see an end to the pathetic "frat-boy", or Bullingdon in this country, culture and allow folks to articulate that it isn't acceptable anymore (and wasn't then). I advocate a rapey-truth-commission overseen by the corpse of Nelson Mandela. The second issue is the absolute power and faith that we (the US in this case, but us as well) put in a single individual. We don't them, we don't need to be led by people, we need to be led by morals and physical targets, so that if an invidual doesn't turn out to be a saint then we can just move onto the next one with the same targets in place. The world doesn't need Bret fucking Kavanuagh or his replacement.

Fit like Mason? I always enjoyed yer posts on donsmad. Interesting point of view. Can you explain further? I can see how Milne could be accused of that but struggling to see where McInnes fits in. To me, he's just a manager that will come and go - he's not a new stadium in fucking Westhill for example - nae part of the fittings.

It's an interesting one like. They've shoe-horned themselves into a contract (I assume until the end of the season?) with Hampden being the only venue they can choose and this appears to be their work around. The question is that with Hampden soon to be under SFA control, would the same problem have occurred? I think that it would. Aberdeen are very much an afterthought, and if they can appease the scum then they're sorted. Zero press headlines (maybe one or two), zero hassle. If, alternatively, we'd have asked one of the cunts (whoever has a home euro match if applicable) to play on the Saturday at 19:45 (for example, to give them a full two days recovery) there would have been an uproar that would have lasted days in the press. There'd have been calls for sackings or resignations. Neither sets of support would have been inconvenienced. The best solution would have been to switch the Hearts v Celtic Tynecastle fixture in February with the Celtic v Hearts fixture at the beginning of November. Then switch the semi with the new November Hearts v Celtic fixture. Thus you have a league game between Hearts and Celtic on our semi-final Sunday (which could have been at 2 or 3pm) in Edinburgh, followed by the semi at hampden between them the following Saturday at 1pm (or whatever time required for TV). Leaving the remaining Celtic v Hearts fixture to be played in February. There would have been no re-arrangements for supporters (I doubt tickets for the Celtic v Hertz game are on sale yet), the dons v huns would be on at a decent time and there would not have been two games in weegieville at the same time. Simple, I'd have thought?

Holy fuck sticks that was exciting. One hell of a risky setup fae McInnes, which I don't think I've ever said in my life before. Pretty much a 3-4-3 for a lot of the match, completely sacrificing the midfield. Shinnie fairly came onto a game in that last 30 minutes, a proper captain with the first pen too. We got lucky. Perversely, despite the 3 front men, we really didn't do much attacking. GMS didn't track at all, which seemed to be the game plan. McGinn was pap. Forrester's only touch was good. Wilson looked really good. Hopefully this is the boot up the arse we need, but still not sure what our best starting 11 is.

We're a poorer team than we were last season based on performances to date. A shitfest 1-0 win would be excellent and testament to our ability to get something when not at our best. Our best performance was probably the draw away to Burnley, where we scrapped for everything in a 4-2-3-1/4-5-1 type setup. Ferguson made a big difference in those games as he was able to hold onto the ball. Both Hoban and Ball did the dirty stuff quite well too with Cosgrove allowing us to play high up the park (whether he was good or not - and I thought he was excellent in the home leg - is largely irrelevant, because they still needed to drop a midfielder back to cope with him, which took up another resource). Unfortunately, I don't think Ferguson will be fit and I think we'll struggle with Ball or Gleeson. Perhaps Campbell could come in to make up the midfield 3? Nae sure he's ready, but I'd feel more comfortable with a 5 than going 4-4-2 against a team that can score goals.

Fair points. With regard to Gleeson, it's his inability to cover left to right when we don't have possession. Hovering around on the half way line looking tidy whilst playing simple passes isn't any use in our current side. Ball isn't great, but he gets stuck in at least. You could be right about Lowe, my thought is that McInnes will see his defensive side a little bit of a liability. Considine has always been decent against Hibs when we've played an orthodox back four and he's up the hoop of Boyle - Boyle has generally crapped it on those occasions. If it was me, I'd probably go Ball and Lowe, but I think the manager will go Ball and Considine, injuries not-withstanding. It'll be interesting.

You think? Based on what. I can see what Lowe offers that Considine doesn't (but I think Lowe looked a little too relaxed in his games to date, so I think McIness will stick with what he knows) but I don't see anything that Gleeson offers over Ball so far. Ball is definitely the better midfielder of the two (sadly, cause he's limited).

It is a good point (I made it, so it must be), but it ignores some critical thinking. I think everyone agrees that Campbell shouldn't replace Shinnie, or wouldn't have replaced McLean or whoever. They are there to bulk up the squad in the same manner as their replacements (yer Gleesons, yer Storeys and so on). Are we not only failing to improve our young players, but also wasting funds? Whilst Cammy Smith hasn't gone on to bigger and better things, he's still better than Tansey, Storey and so on. Similarly Joe Shug has been a significantly greater success than many of the other horses we've taken in and given game time to (Alan Tate, arguably O'Connor and Taylor, Morris etc). Perhaps we're busy searching for the next Eoin Jess, when a steady squad player would save the massive redundancy of many of our shite signings. Whilst it might seem a little underwhelming, Shankland (and definitely Magennis) would have been better than Storey, Maynard, Parker, probably Stockley and others and would have saved a tonne on poor recruitment. Recruitment that often seems to be done as an end in itself rather than as a strategic development process. Could we have just cut out a massive chunk of our recruitment for various positions and concentrated on one or two absolutely key positions each year? I think that looking how the youth players who didn't go on to better things vs non-youth players who also didn't go on to better things, I think we'd be no worse off. I think we're ignoring the latter category.