RicoS321

I don't get the impression Deek views Tansey as a starter at the moment, which is why I think it's a strange move. However, it could be something more simple that we don't even think about such as availability of a surgeon or some such. The club has maybe been given a couple of dates and thought, we might as well keep him available for a couple of games. Thing is, we're only really holding him back by 3 working days (if surgeons dinna dee wikends) if we keep him in the squad until Monday, and the extra week that'll take to get him back is probably nae going to make a difference if he's out for a month. I doubt McInnes would throw him straight back in for the Tims after 4 weeks out after an op. He'll take another couple to get back to fitness. Probably a smart move, even if he only comes off the bench tonight to score the winning free-kick.

Well that's fairly shite. I'd have thought that Portlethen would have made sense, especially given the extension of hoosing at Elsick. Ah well, back roads it is I'd have thought.

I do the opposite journey quite regularly, I reckon the Blairs route will still be as quick. Unless the arse end of Badentoy is connected in anyway to the new road, then it might be fine. I'm assuming it will be, so you could either go into Badentoy if that's where ye are, or go across the ASDA flyover and in if you work in the town itself. There's definitely a slip road on to it from Banchory Devenick, but I haven't worked out if you can come off the road and onto the back roads behind the Devenick Dairy. That way, you could come out at hillside and head into Portlethen that way. It's nae obvious, and difficult to find the route on the transportScotland/AWPR page (it takes more than 1 minute, so I can't be airsed). Hope yiv still got a job to go to though given it's only 6 months away.

It's a good point. I don't think we've deserved to lose any of our games other than Hearts one too. However, there is none where we've comfortably deserved the points. I suspect what people are really saying is that we've been unconvincing against mostly bottom 6 opponents and, against what appears to be a decent Motherwell team, our performances would not warrant a victory. Do you think that's fair?

Straight in head first with your inaugural post. Kamikaze you could say.

I bet it isn't

Went past that last night, only has one section left, so will finish next wik (believe they do one section per week as they wait for it to dry). Otherwise, think it's on target for about March/April next year, with parts maybe open before that. Think the original schedule was June next year, then they made some ground and set a target of December this year, before pushing it back again. Be interesting to see it when it's done, although it winna effect me until Kingsford opens.

I see fit yer saying Bobby, I just think we're way off it with the 2 up front just now. Wait until we have a bit of confidence before trying it again, or if we're trailing. The cup is too important to be fucking about with trying shite out. We've proved over 3 seasons that we can batter teams like Motherwell playing 4-2-3-1, there's no sense in buggering up our cup run. Maybe gie it a shot on Sunday if we get through.

Going to be a very difficult one on Thursday. Back to basics for me, solid at the back and in midfield and let the creative players do their thing in a recognised (for us) formation. No dicking about. Get back on track and start winning games convincingly before we try fucking about with the setup. Keep Maynard the fuck away from the game. I wasn't at the Killie game, so only going on what was said on here, but I'd go: -----------------Lewis---------------- Logan---OConnor---Arneson--Consi ----------Ball--------Shinnie--------- --Christie-------McLean------GMS-- -----------------May----------------- Think we need to revert to type. Tansey for Ball as an option if he's fit. Wright for GMS depending on the weather. No pricking about trying to force Rooney and May to play together. Anyway, Out, TV etc.

Interesting enough, he could be right, who knows. Surely he must understand that Rangers v anyone is a game that is hyped out of all proportion given Rangers' current position? With that, obviously comes a greater desire to win. Aberdeen v Partick just doesn't get the same spotlight on it as the huns so the players are probably less riled. Coupled with the fact that the huns are still relatively new to the league and teams have experienced that if they have a go at the them they can easily get something, then it's no surprise. God only knows why he is making comparisons with Celtic though. They're in an entirely different league to Rangers. If teams pressed Celtic high up the pitch like they can Rangers, they'd get picked off with ease and be on the end of a tanking. Teams have to sit in against the Tims (especially at tim park), whereas there's not that requirement against der hun. To be fair to him, he's not asking for ref protection - something the tims did regularly under Lennon - he's just saying teams are more aggressive. If he can't understand why that is, and if the interviewer is too thick to just let him speak, then he'll not get very far in management.

Because, as he said at the end, they weren't relevant. He was actually entirely correct. The guy was asking if Kingsford was safer than Pittodrie, which is entirely irrelevant. Because his ludicrous argument was that there was a huge terrorist threat at Kingsford because of the pipeline, which only exists in that location (in terms of pur stadium development), so safety in comparison to Pittodrie, or anywhere else, is actually not relevant. The absurdity of his argument rendered most of the questions irrelevant, that was what was funny about it. They should have just not posed any questions and moved on. The only angle that I can possibly think he was looking for was that maybe the publicity would get some over-officious BP HSE person examining it. It's one of the only things that would knock the application dead in the water (if BP objected on pipeline grounds). His argument was plainly retarded though, and makes even me want to see Kingsford built to see the look on his face. As I said to Tamzarian earlier this evening, he should have brought up the risk of planes flying into it if it's underneath a flight path. A popular new stadium like that is certainly going to turn some hijacker's heads, that's for sure.

His positioning is fantastic too. He's always standing in the right place at every moment. Saves like the one you mention wouldn't be possible for some keepers, because they'd be so out of position that reaction speed wouldn't make a difference (that's how he made the tip over look so easy too). Lewis gives himself time to make saves by standing correctly in the first place. He reminds me of Craig Gordon in his Hertz days, absolutely phenomenal goalie. I could imagine the Tims upgrading - because it is an upgrade - to Lewis at the end of the season for a very healthy sum. I'd expect £2M plus for someone of Lewis's ability. In terms of standing, he's up there with Leighton and Snelders and definitely ahead of Kjaer. Leighton was a completely different type of goalie than both Snelders and Lewis so it's difficult to say. I think Snelders edges it over Lewis though. He was more of a unit and wouldn't have looked out of place in any league in the world. Lewis maybe just doesn't have the physical strength which is probably why he wasn't as highly regarded as he should have been down South.

Jesus, the stadiums you mention are all absolutely horrendous. If ever there were an advert for not building outside the city, that would be it. If the club - which they aren't - were to re-develop Pittodrie or build at King's Links, there is absolutely no way that the council would refuse it on transport grounds. As for Kingsford edging out Pittodrie, that's a bit far fetched. For vehicle transport, maybe. However, 0 people walking versus a few thousand would definitely sway it in Pittodrie's favour in the 21st century. Setting stuff up for people to drive to is completely regressive. Again, we're nae B&Q. Shuttles have proven in the past to not work, hence the reason there are very few from existing park and ride sites to Pittodrie on a Saturday. Kingsford doesn't even come close to Pittodrie for access options. From the South, it takes me about 25 minutes to get to Pittodrie on match day from past Portlethen and only a ten minute delay on the way out. The bottleneck on King St is a problem, but it's an existing problem. One thing we can be absolutely certain of is that there will be significantly more cars going to Kingsford than there is Pittodrie for the same size crowd, and that can only be a huge step backward, regardless of congestion.

It's bollocks though really, isn't it? Regardless of stadium location that is, and not on an anti-Kingsford point, the club are building this facility for themselves not the community. I have no issue with that like, that's entirely the point. However, as far as I'm aware, nobody in Westhill is really arguing against the training pitches. It's the accompanying stadium that's the issue.

In what way will their grand kids benefit from the stadium? The training facilities perhaps, but arbitrarily having a stadium next to your hoose probably won't benefit their grand kids in anyway.

Nope, I don't. In the original argument I spoke of a stadium being for the next 100 years. Hence why "no time at all". The point being that it's fuck all in the scheme of things. A handful of Hayes's if you like. Absolutely worth it to make the correct decision. It was a suggestion, yes. They can fund it however they want. £6M over ten years would even be possible as clubs like the Arabs and Hibees have shown to their detriment. The station is 1.2miles. It's a piece of piss. I didn't say you had taken a tram to Pittodrie, I'm saying you would have to build one in order to make Westhill as good a location as Pittodrie. Because it's a mass transport system. Which you'd need to transport that many people out of the city centre. No, there aren't. That's why they've never successfully implemented any at the existing stadium. Yes you do. That's exactly why you do it. If 3,000 less people turned up in a downturn, that would equate to £1.2M a season. That's 5 seasons worth of shite performances over the life of the stadium. I don't believe it would have that big an effect however, so let's half it and assume 10 seasons of shite fitba. We've had more than 10 shite seasons since Milne joined, so I think we could stretch to that. There is no link between quality of stadium and your £6M figure as far as I'm aware. Ergo, the same stadium could be built at the beach, thus making a non-B&Q version of Kingsford for the additional £6M. Juventus is a terrible example. They moved away from their home Stadio Comunale for the 90 world cup. The fans hated it. It's the equivalent of running yer stadium into the ground before telling everyone it's in a state of disrepair - no shit. For what it's worth, I think the pictures of Kingsford look okay.

No it isn't. On a turnover of £13-14M per annum it isn't. There's nothing naive here I'm afraid. We won't be paying £6M up front, it'll be spread over 30 years. Probably about £300K per year additional. It might be unattainable on top of other payments, but that's not the argument being made. I didn't say you did, I'm saying that if you wanted to get Kingsford to the transport standard of the beach then you'd need trams or trains. Anything else is substandard compared to Pittodrie. Yep, it's a decent argument. There is no evidence to say that the crowds will chuck it, I just believe that they are far more likely to. Putting that extra obstacle in the way will make it more likely. The fact that people attended Pittodrie during the Paterson era was because it was easy, or through habit. If I had been asked to get on a bus to Westhill, I probably wouldn't have renewed my season ticket during that time. I would still have gone, just not nearly as much. The evidence of away support isn't a good barometer either, as it generally sits around 1-2K over a season. Those are either hardcore supporters who go home and away, central belters who only come up the road a few times a season and folk who are there for the pish up and day out that doesn't exist in Westhill every week.

£448K profit last year, down on £542 the previous. That's with a crumbling old stadium dying on it's airse it seems, where the maintenance costs alone will cover the mortgage on a new place. So, yes, we would pay £6M back in no time. It's stupid to say otherwise, it's a building we'll have for the next century, so 10 years is a short time. To improve the transport links to Kingsford to the level of that of walking distance from the city centre would be astronomical. You're talking mass transport like train or tram. £6M won't be covering it. If it was £6M, which I doubt, then that money would be repaid within the first 15-20 years with extra gate receipts over Kingsford alone. I have no doubt that in 5 years time, Kingsford would struggle to cope with a downturn in form such as that of the Paterson era. Out of sight, out of mind, out of routine. The shite IKEA decaying by the side of the road. If Milne's building it, it'll look like Pittodrie within 15 years.

£6M extra for Kings links? That's be a no-brainer. It's a 100 year development, nae a Stewart Milne house. Over the life of the stadium, £6M is fuck all. We could get half of that for Joe Lewis..... The business case for the city centre location over Westhill is huge. We'd make that money back in no time. I don't believe it was £6M different however. Must have been more than that.

The good thing about the Sixt adverts is that there are three of them. Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA5vMRRJWyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlyuyZhsY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2NxRqf1Nlk I don't find them particularly offensive I have to admit. Just annoying. I tend to find the only people I hate in a national sense are those that I haven't actually met. So it's generally my own ignorance. Folks that are the stereotype of any nation are probably all cunts, because stereotyping in itself is usually used to present the worse traits of a nation (grippy Scots, arrogant English, mental Yanks etc). The vast majority of folk don't conform to it. That's why I don't believe the UK should carry nuclear weapons; because our enemies are nae actually our enemies. If you travelled to Russia, for example, you wouldn't meet an entire nation desperate to involve themselves in a war with the yanks. But that's how the Russians are portrayed. You get the idea..

3 at the back definitely has its uses. We beat the tims a couple of seasons ago with Quinn added to the back four. It worked perfectly. It just isn't required against Hertz. To me, it should only have been used with Logan as wing back though, and Shinnie rather than Wright. Wright doesn't have the engine of someone like Hayes, and it's unfair to ask him to play that role and then hook him when it's not going well. Although, it won't do him any harm either to teach him the hard-working aspect of the game that made Hayes such a good professional. To me, 3 at the back is for games where we have defend, rather than as a weird way of shoe-horning two strikers in (I agree with you, 4-4-2 was the only option there). KFP, I wasn't really having a go at Maynard there (I was..), I was more commenting on not changing the formation. Maynard wasn't the guy to bring on for Rooney, a change in setup was required as Stewart pointed out several times (I agree with you Rocket, Stewart is very good). That doesn't do Maynard any good either as you say.

Ach, to be fair, Murrayfield is always a difficult place to go and get points. Anyway, the radio was saying we were playing 3 at the back with Ball sitting in front? How the fuck did that work? Back 3 of Logan, O'Connor and Considine. Nae wonder Considine and Logan struggled. Was it: ------------------Lewis----------------- -----Logan----OConnor----Consi------ -------------------Ball------------------- Christie---McLean---Shinnie---Wright ------------Rooney----May------------- Jebus, nae wonder we struggled. Stewart was saying on the radio that he couldn't believe that we didn't switch formation when we made the changes. We clearly had the personnel to revert to a back four and get some width that wasn't required to track back as wing backs all day. But we made a like for like switch (if Maynard is like for like with anything). Lucky we didn't lose. Nevermind though, hopefully he'll learn.

It is weird isn't it? Loirston was at least in the city, demonstrably so. Was it just bad timing? Would it have got more support if the AWPR had been well into construction? The transport plan - albeit still fairly shite - was ten times better than Kingsford. It was just about walkable from the station (3.4 miles uphill is a bit of a trek like, but fine on the way home) with the obvious option of opening a new station in the future. The additional journey time over Kingsford for those from the North with the AWPR would be about 10 minutes max. I didn't like Loirston, but I just don't get the clamour for Kingsford at all, it's clearly an inferior location.

To be fair, Bellfield was also attached to a Euros bid wasn't it? When that got shelved, unsurprisingly, it was quietly slipped into the background as the government wouldn't fund it and there was no chance of the dons affording it. Were they not going to have a stadium that could be conveniently flatpacked up and down from 20-35K as and when required? I remember all sorts of stories in the rag in those days.

So really, because of the AWPR, Anyone going to any of those locations served by the AWPR will be equally affected whether in Westhill or AECC - i.e. there's fuck all difference for them apart fae maybe 10 minutes extra for those from the South (me). What Slim correctly points out is that it's far better served from the city centre, and the transport plan for AECC would be ten times more workable than Westhill with 16 existing bus routes. Also, I have on more than one occasion walked the 3.1 miles back into town from AECC. It's closer than Loirston, and flatter. Whilst I don't really like the venue (in fact I think the AECC's biggest draw back currently is location) it's just an all round better location than Westhill. It's not even close in terms of transport plan.