RicoS321

I meant it's a stand alone project (i.e. it's not part of any city development plan or any other projects for the area). It's not even remotely integrated with the city of Aberdeen. The AWPR is a bypass. The clue is in the name.

It is another shopping mall or glass office block. It's inspired by that type of development at least. Not integrated and without thought to the surrounding area. There should be no emphasis on the city to do anything, it's a stand alone venture by a stand alone private company. That is entirely clear in this project, and should be abundantly clear in its treatment. That's not to say that anyone should be spiteful, unhelpful or deliberately put up barriers, but the onus is entirely on the club to make a success of it - no one else. I agree with your suggestions about the bar and/or coffee arrangements, but the problem with these out of town Ikea-type developments (or even AECC with bugger all round it) is that they lure you in with an event then take the piss with absolutely atrocious food offerings and shite beer served by massive companies that have zero interest in AFC. Everything in the club's current food offering at Pittodrie suggest that perhaps that won't change. I think we'll see, as we get closer to the development/building stage, that we'll sign some long term contracts with the likes of Sodexo that will help finance the project whilst selling us out in some binding agreement to provide shite food. Hopefully not, it's a huge opportunity to make it good. To be honest, I probably have different ideas as to what constitutes good food from the majority of folks anyway.

When you build it They will come For the first 4 - 5 season At which point they won't bother their arses Field of Dreams/hazardous landfill waste

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">[Kingsford approved.]<br><br>"I'd like you to explain why we should build a 20,000 capacity stadium that's seven miles from the city centre and has no transport links."<br><br>Milne: "That's the most intelligent question I've ever been asked...Next question! You there, eating the paste." <a href="https://t.co/2lKvP3KgWt">pic.twitter.com/2lKvP3KgWt</a></p>— Simpsons SPFL (@SimpsonsSPFL) <a href=" 29, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yes. We wouldn't people voting against a majority. That would be a disaster for democracy. I think everyone should vote the same way regardless of their own opinion.

approved 32 - 9

It's a done deal. Unless there are a heap of folk hiding somewhere in the building.

Really? Seems like there's been about 800 speeches. If not, come on the silent majority...

Final two. Looking good for the dons...

Now come the "fors's's'". Going to be close...

Councillor F John just did some spasm with his shoulders before forgetting where he was, which I found amusing. A lot of againsts so far....

Difficult to tell really. Shinnie was so far off the pace yesterday it was unreal. He looked decent, but the type that might ship a couple of goals if he was put under any pressure.

FIFY

I do, I just don't agree. Yes he did, we completely dominated them from the kick off. We had the better of them in every position and could have scored more That's what happened at Ibrox, but it was the lack of belief instilled in the players that was blamed. The difference between us and hibs is similar to that between us and the huns. Ha ha, fair doos. Again, going back to your original point about being better, Lennon was just a better footballer. That's all. McInnes captained West Brom to Championship victory and in the Premiership. Captained Utd, Millwall and St Johnstone too. That's a lot of captaincy for someone who isn't a winner. Or a lot of mistakes by subsequent managers. I think McInnes could do much better, but I think we're struggling personnel wise this season. We had a lot of re-building this season (Hayes alone against the huns midweek would have massive difference), and I think that meant we struggled to get players in the positions we actually needed to strengthen in. I just don't think we're as good as we were last season, but the fact that we have more points is testament to McInnes. We've ground out a lot of points this season that previous managers wouldn't have won us, and Lennon hasn't with hibs.

I don't get the Lennon love in. He's a whiney little fuck who Deek has got the better of on numerous occasions, most notably the recent tanking. Overrated little wankpiece.

Assume we'll have to. Is the u20s loon nae injured, and th'ither only 16? We should just put Leighton on the bench for old times.

Good stuff. Never massively rated him, but only saw him a few times. Had a couple of good games against us though, so hopefully he'll slot right in on the right hand side. That's our centre backs sorted for next season though. That'll hopefully give us time and room to search for a centre mid or two (or left back) and a striker.

In. I think we'll be a bit deflated and might struggle. Same team but switch in McGinn and Arnason if both are fit. 2-1 the dons. Rooney and McLean.

Surely if it did then it would happen every time? We beat them in the run in last season, and there was no shortage of belief then. Or is it just the case that belief will only win you 1 game in 4 (for example) where you're not the obvious favourite? If that isn't the case, then why do teams perform so poorly against us? Lack of belief? But then get a draw against the hun? Belief restored? If GMS had scored his chance at 0-0, would they have lacked belief? I understand that you can be very much up for a game, but I think circumstance will often overtake that (an early goal or whatever) and that your belief is only useful if the other team reduces their belief. Because if both teams have "belief", then who's belief do we believe? At that point, I think it gets a little absurd. I understand the notion. I just don't fully understand it's measure and the extent to which a poorer team can be expected to beat a better team (at their home ground).

I'd say 90% of the time - at re-starts - we had Rooney right on one defender of a well-stretched back three because he doesn't have the pace to split two and ensure that they are both marked as they just pass it round him. We started high up, but had to quickly pull back as each time (and it happened several times) McLean or Christie pushed up alongside Rooney we were left with a gaping hole. If Killie were watching, it's what they will do. The biggest difference being is that their centre half will take 3 touches to get it under control before hoofing it. They're not as quick and as sharp as their hun counterparts. If we'd had an extra midfielder against the hun, then I think it would have allowed us to mitigate Rooney's lack of pace and retain our structure higher up. However, that would have highlighted the other glaring deficiencies we've shown with a back 3. Rooney's position is the key against the huns and tims (and more so becoming an issue against other top 6 teams). It affects absolutely everything.

We weren't starting deep, we dropped deep because we couldn't attack them when we didn't have the ball. Surely it's possible that the natural flow of the game - due to the personnel - forces us back down the pitch? Rooney simply can't play the role that allows us to stay higher up the pitch. How many times did he take the ball in a position upfield and hold it up for others to join him, or move wide to take the ball, or put real pressure on the defenders and holding midfielder? It all starts there. McInnes tried to fix it with May, but he's been largely pish or injured. It's why it was so important to ditch Maynard and get someone else in. Anyone else really. Even a big cunt that we could hoof it at. We can't attack them because we don't have the personnel that our most attacking formation (4-2-3-1) allows us to do in every other game simply because we're much better than the opponent.

Apologies, it won't happen again (but, for reference, all you do is type at the end to separate out the text). But all of that assumes that we're not actually playing another team that has designs on winning the game. You're saying we change the way we play, but we don't, it's just that the team we are playing against is better. Having Rooney up front against Hibs is not the same as against Rangers. Rooney does not fit in a team that is pushing them back or pressing high, he simply just gets passed around and then we lose shape as our midfield gets dragged out to cover. That is what occurs. That is what would occur against St Mirren or Hibs if they were better. We're not sitting in as a tactic, it's just a natural occurrence when you have a slow forward. Going man for man is the most attacking way of playing them, which is what you're saying we shouldn't do, but then saying we should. We don't have the ball 100% of the time so we can't dictate anything without pressing high. The unpalatable part here is that we actually played better when Ball came on. Partly because they were 2-0 up, but partly because we matched them in midfield and that allowed greater width and prevented Tavernier getting forward. If we'd started with Ball in midfield we'd all (including me) have accused McInnes of bottling it. It would also have caused us huge problems at the back because we don't have a natural back 3 without taking Shinnie out of midfield to wing back. Again, you can't just say, "I would have attacked them", because that totally ignores personnel and the fact that there is an opposition.

We didn't go man for man the entire game, just for that goal though. People were dragged out of position (Considine came central etc) and they took advantage out wide. I have to say, Lewis' punch for the first left a lot to be desired. No they don't, that's nonsense. Pretty much every time the huns have dropped points this season they've completely dominated the opening periods and wasted numerous chances. Teams that have taken points from them (Hamilton, Killie) have sat in, frustrated them and then taken their chances. As I said previously, we played the same system against Hibs (and St Mirren) but the personnel were different. Also, you just stated that we went "man-for-man", which is the opposite of changing our game against them (I don't think we did). I'm not sure what yer point is. What tactic should we have deployed, and how do you think we would have deployed that tactic with the personnel involved? It's easy to criticise, and easy to analyse an individual goal, but in terms of the entire game approach, what would you have done differently with those personnel (or how would you have changed the line up)?

I think it's more of a personnel issue. We had the same setup against the hun as we did against hibs, with the big difference being May. McGinn didn't get a minute's peace because May (who was pretty gash with the ball in that game) kept sticking his toe in coming back the way as well as being able to pressure the defence high up the pitch too and being able to take the ball in wide areas and wait for support. We didn't sit in against the hun the other night, we just couldn't defend from the front because Rooney doesn't offer that. How do you press when you've got a guy that isn't quick enough to press? By sacrificing a midfielder to join him, and one the occasions we did that they ran right through us. So we naturally hold back and let them come at us. You have to defend from the front and we don't do that with Rooney and so better teams, that can move the ball more quickly, play round us (utilising the holding midfielder to great effect usually).