RicoS321

If you're going to call out 100%AK's shite, at least do it with something that's not absolute bullshit yersel. The above is just patronising airy-fairy shite about feelings. We've asking for facts. Not some straw-man bollocks about favourite restaurants that have nothing to do with anything. You mention re-directing streets? Where's the evidence that says that can't be done? Where's even the slightest attempt to make that happen from our club? Where's the application to the council to do that? You're telling me that the club couldn't put heaps of pressure - as it's currently doing to push through Kingsford - on the council to change one street in the city right next to the existing stadium? We're saying that an application for an entire stadium in a completely new location with next to zero transport plan is easier to get through planning than re-routing Pittodrie street? I don't really believe that. I'm not suggesting it would be easy, I'm suggesting there has been no effort to make it happen, rather there has been active effort to make it not happen.

Of course I do. That's the absolute minimum they should be doing. They should be investigating moving the Main stand and re-routing the road, stepping the South stand from right to left (as you face it) to avoid blocking light whilst gaining more seats, investigate buying the bottom row of flats in the building most affected in order to gain an extra metre or two in height. Using general imagination and working out what maximum size they could reach, and allowing fans to submit a series of questions (stupid or otherwise) to help satisfy any concerns. List the various options and reasons why those options are unfeasible. Take suggestions and develop them or send them back with a reason why they're gash. Involve the community and fans in a decision that will affect them long after Stewarty moves on. That's what they did for Loirston, that's what they're doing for Kingsford and I dare say they did similar for Bellfied (was that what it was called? I canna mine now) too. If they haven't already done that, then why not? If I could see the drawings and see the work done, be given the opportunity to submit ideas and make comment, I'd definitely believe it. As I can't see the drawings (not even yours...!), I don't believe it. The cost of being inclusive and open/transparent is nothing and will only benefit the club in the long run. I dare say it'd even be the difference between getting Kingsford through planning or not. Threats of "we'll have to play in Glasgow" just make me more suspicious. Those aren't the comments of a trustworthy person, who's made a watertight and transparent case.

I dinna think anyone argued that his strength was his biggest attribute....

It's not easily accessible, as evidenced by you. You said earlier in the thread that you don't currently get a season ticket at Pittodrie because it's hard to get to. Yet you think having people from the city centre travelling the exact opposite route somehow is.

Nit, it wouldn't alleviate anything. They've put out their "fact sheet", which says 12K seats. What we need is a set of reasonably detailed plans that show the 12,000 seater stadium. An open consultation with the fans (let's call them: "the real owners of AFC") where the club is a neutral facilitator. It's ludicrous that anyone finds anything less than that acceptable. They haven't done this because they simply can't back up their 12,000 seat statement with evidence. Mainly because they paid a firm to come up with the answer they wanted to hear rather than do an extensive piece of work to provide a stadium where Pittodrie currently sits. That's it in a nutshell for me - the club haven't actually paid anyone to try to build a stadium on the site of Pittodrie. Does nobody else find that fact absolutely bizarre?

Instead of saying "Lets accept", how about we base our decision on fact? That would be a lot better surely? Why the fuck would anyone want to leave their city centre, prime location, stadium on a "lets accept"? I find it absolutely fucking absurd that any dons fan with any ability to think, thinks that moving is a good idea based on being presented with zero evidence whatsoever from the club that backs up the inability to renovate Pittodrie. I find it staggering. I like the Kingsford design, it looks okay. I realise there's not that much that can really make stadiums look amazing, so this one's not bad. I don't agree that it looks like a lego St Mirren-esque ground. However, I do think it'll look shite isolated in a field in the middle of nowhere. That, to me, does make it a little bit more St Johnstone than Hertz or Hibs.

^^^This. The old "his legs have gone" (whatever the fuck that means) after a poor run of form. It got used for Anderson way before he retired after a few poor games (around the time Hector had a decent run). It's like an overwhelming desire to write players off before their time. It's weird. There's no way the club doesn't test these guys in terms of pace and fitness and McInnes would be the first to know if Reynolds was losing pace. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it. What I did see was a player who, after injury, went on a poor run of form which continued for nearly a season. Since the turn of the year, he's made very few mistakes and generally coped well. Due, mostly, to his good positional sense, his cautious approach and his obvious pace (Willie Miller was actually talking about it - his pace - last week on radio Scotland, saying what a great attribute it was). Reynolds' biggest problem has always been his strength and his lack of footballing ability (on the ball). His reading of the game is excellent, he's always looking at what his partner is doing and plays the line fantastically well. He's no world-beater, but he's easily one of the best defenders in the league (as most of our players are in their respective positions). He's better than Berra at Hertz for example (in my opinion), and certainly would get in the hun, hibs and St Johnstone teams too. Reynolds has had a few very good years for us, and didn't let us down when called upon last season either (our biggest defensive issues occurred when he was missing). I reckon we owe him a bit more time to prove he's lost it before ditching him. Christ, he played alongside Taylor and got regular clean sheets. Is it any wonder he suffered after Anderson left? A shitter player would have crumbled alongside such an unpredictable centre half.

Nice. Would look ace on Merkland road.

He's played full back a few times for us. Never successfully. Mainly because he's shite with the ball at his feet (Saturday aside!). He's good at centre half as he understands his limitations. He's got a good couple of years left in him.

I think it's fucking ace. Well done lads. If they die, they die. Good stuff loons. Beats sitting in an office.

It's a celebration of queen, her subjects and of the past glorious conquering of minion countries such as Scotland. With hurdles and shit. Don't let them fool you. If I were you, I'd smear shite on yer tickets and send them back to England.

To extend on Donsdaft's point, I'm surprised you partake in such Imperialist celebrations? Is Scotland's competing in this not an affront to your uber-patriotic nationalism? Is not a sign of Scotland's desire to live in permanent servitude to it's Queen and British master? Just asking like....

I think we've made our last signing. We've got a good enough squad to finish second, it's up to Deek to make that happen now. Our defence of Consi, Reynolds, Logan and a.n.other has had hunners of clean sheets over the last few years, that'll continue. With Arneson as back up, I'd say that's enough for the league and cups. Full back is probably our weakest position (given Considine and Arneson can cover at centre half), but we should adequately cover this by promoting Harvie when required. It'd be nice to see him get some game time when we're comfortable in games in order that there's not a huge step up. We're strong enough that we can carry a youngster at times if required. Littering our squad with yer Meekings's is unnecessary and detrimental to our youth system. It's been a while since we've produced a half decent centre half or full back from the youths like, with Robertson probably the last to make a go of it professionally (Grimmer, I suppose, but we barely saw him). I think at some stage we just have to begin to develop our way out of any perceived squad issues. Little risk in doing so, in my opinion, until January.

The Portuguese fuck used the phrase We are the people in his post-match interview. Tragic as fuck. He can only be being told to say that shite by the hun hierarchy. Fucked up like. It'd be like Deek telling folk to stand free after a defeat. Except he'd have earned it.

I thought the Hamilton second yellow against us was harsh, Christie made an absolute meal of it. Now the hun gets sent off for the hun in strange circumstances. I suspect this thread will need closed soon at this rate.

Honestly, I didn't think either of them were horrendous decisions. The hun one I thought was a penalty all day long first time I saw it. On second viewing, the guy made an absolute meal of it. Seeing the tim one now, it's a definite penalty. However, it wasn't exactly a blatant one. It's nae like he nailed him, just an accidental trip. I think the Tim one was incorrect, but not a bad decision and the hun one was correct but the guy made it look much worse than it was.

The good thing about him is that we don't have to amend our style of play to suit him. He'll slot nicely into the Rooney position. That gives us direct competition for Rooney and a chance to get him fit and scoring too, rather than trying to play him into form when he's off the boil. We have one striker role, we should be looking at two good strikers and a youth team backup. We need to ship one of Storey, Stockley or Maynard shortly and look to promote Mclennan or someone else fae the youths as bench-sitter. It would seem a much better way to control our playing budget.

Racist

Good stuff. That'll put the strikers thread to bed for a few weeks. There was no way Deek wasn't seeing what we all were. Shame he couldn't have got him in a few weeks ago, but understandable with PNE situation. Potentially good business. Should go straight in as he'll be fit.

May back on the cairds according to rumours. 300K. Not convinced, would rather have Moult, but can't complain. If he regains any of his saints form that'd be exactly what we're looking for.

Here's our strikers since McInnes came (and inherited): Maynard,Stockley,Storey,Church,Goodwillie,Parker,Zola,Vernon,Magennis,Burns,McGinn,Smith,Fallon(?) He inherited Vernon and Magennis (and ditched Fallon sharpish, so let's ignore him). Smith can probably be ignored as he didn't feature as striker often, neither Burns or McGinn Ever since that point, he's been trying to replace them two. Vernon was a finisher and Rooney immediately replaced him. Magennis was a battering ram who was decent in the air and fast. If we were to categorise them: Strikers only: Rooney, Vernon, Church Target men: Stockley, Zola, Magennis Quick or creative men: Maynard, Goodwillie, Parker, Storey Of that list, Rooney is the only stand out. Of those he inherited, Magennis and Vernon probably sit above any of those that have come after. Magennis is better than either Zola or Stockley. Vernon would have had a better return than any of the others and been more useful generally, probably. It shows us a couple of things. First is that the vast majority of our striker signings have been punts. We're operating in a market where we expect a high turnover of players for that role due to them not necessarily featuring every week and thus we budget for that role accordingly. Second is that we're not generating the youth challenge that we should be in this role. We should be looking to produce youth strikers at least as good as Storey, Parker, Zola etc. However it could be that we're just not giving our youngsters opportunity because we feel like we need to give these guys a chance. Overall, the signing policy for this role isn't working. We're taking punts on players that we're hoping we can fashion something out of. It's having a detrimental effect on youth (would anyone argue that giving Smith more game time than Parker, or Shankland more time than Goodwillie/Zola - even Stockley - would have had a huge effect on results?). It's also having an effect on each player that gets signed. We're experiencing that now with Storey and Maynard. Maynard is being given game time because Storey has already been deemed surplus to requirements. Each year, or half year, we're having to try to force a player who isn't good enough into some sort of form or role in the team. Repeatedly. Something has to change. We either give that same opportunity to a youngster (let's say McLennan) in order that we benefit long term (or not), or we up our budget, pool our resources and put some weight behind the importance of that position - for example, ditch Stockley and Storey (and Maynard in Jan) and get in Moult or another. Plodding along hoping we might get lucky doesn't suit McInnes' recruitment style or ability.

That's not it I don't think. I think he's pretty grateful to be here (or anywhere). Very much like Goodwillie, it's like he's spent so much time on the fringes that he's forgotten how to play the game (or specifically, forgotten how to play the position). He can still control a ball and make a pass if it's obvious, and occasionally do something good. You can see by the runs he makes, or doesn't make, that he's just not reading the game and understanding his role. Like Goodwillie, if we persist with him, there might be the odd game where things click for him and he regains a bit of the past player he perhaps was but for the most part he won't get it. I think Maynard is destined for part time fitba without a shite load of constant work and game time. Compare that to Rooney, who's off form. It's night and day. Rooney is still making the runs, he knows exactly what to do. He's just a yard off where he should be, making the run half a second too late. Just struggling with a bit of sharpness and a bit of fitness. He's 29, I've absolutely no doubt that he'll come good again.

As you were.

We've had an issue in the striker role for a season now. Rooney struggling with form and Stockley and Storey known quantities of pish. I like to make a snap judgement on a player online based on their first performance or so, cause that's what forums are for. So I'm laying it on the line and saying Maynard is shite at fitba. I'm right more than I've been wrong in the past about players, McGinn a notable exception, Taylor went on to be better than I gave him credit for. I'm always happy watching the dons though, and wouldn't boo a player. I don't dislike players due to perceived hun/timness and I dinna hold grudges and am quick to change my judgement on a player and accept that they just lose form (for example, I dinna accuse Reynolds of being past it, losing his legs or just shite when he's clearly performed quite well for the last 6 months just to back up a point that was made when he was off form). I'll very happily afford Maynard a full apology when he proves me wrong. But it's good fun to have an opinion on players. Better than being a happy clapper and saying that every dons player is ace. Like McLean. McLean is ace.

Richard Gordon "somewhat surprising, Rangers drawn away against Premiership opposition" Good stuff.