RicoS321

I don't know, it all seemed a little after the event from them. We had similar with Fraser (not with a tribunal obviously), but everyone - quite rightly - was annoyed with AFC for not acting sooner. We clearly didn't realise we had a player on our hands, and then dicked about offering insulting development wages to a guy who was clearly going to be a first teamer. Everyone blamed the club (a few the player), and correctly so. It was a mistake, and the hope is that we've learned from that. Compare that with our handling of McKenna and it's night and day. The minute he showed first team promise we got him nailed down with a respectful offer on a long contract. Hamilton's entire business model is to promote youth and sell on, that they've made such an error is something that their fans should be holding their CEO to account for. The obvious, and only plausible, conclusion is that they didn't think they had a player on their hands like we did Fraser. The tribunal, it sounds, came to the only conclusion it good given player development and contract offers.

I think that your assessment of Hoban is based on your dislike of Considine rather than Hoban's strengths. Hoban was significantly poorer than Considine in the Burnley legs playing in the same position. Anyone at those games would agree. Not to be harsh on Hoban who was visibly playing on his wrong foot (his body shape was just weird on numerous occasion). You mention he gets exposed against the bigger teams, but that didn't happen once in the run in post-split. The reason? Because he was played at the left of the back four and sat on top of the winger. Every time last season in which he struggled was when he played left of a 3 or left of a five (for about 15 minutes), which was all pre-split games against the Huns and Tims and once against Hearts. We played to his weaknesses, it was atrocious tactics. It's the equivalent of playing Logan at centre half and wondering why he's not winning headers. He was great post split, and great against Burnley. Nobody in the entire world is blinded by the fact that he scored a hat-trick 2 years ago, that's just a weird thing to say.

Possibly, but he's clearly a better striker then anyone they'd likely afford. Perhaps he's incapable of doing the fitba and management at the same time, which is maybe not surprising. I have to admit, I think it's good to see a player wanting to continue as long as he can. Fair play to him*. * the dirty hun fuck etc.

I 100% disagree with this! The difference between Hoban and Considine in the first and second legs in the Burnley game was night and day, with Considine far superior. He bullied Lennon down there, as well as getting on the end of a couple of crosses and generally providing a far better balance. I'm surprised anyone would suggest playing a right footer ahead of him, and I'm certain McInnes definitely wouldn't. Considine has been consistently good for us for several seasons now and earned his place in the team by being above average every week. His performances in a back four are always good and his work rate and fitness are excellent. I don't get the "weak link" suggestion that's always pointed at him, in my opinion it's just lazy. Is he a better left back than Shinnie? No. A better defender I'd say, but it's obvious what Shinnie brings to that role that Considine doesn't. If we're sticking Shinnie at left back at every week then drop Considine, no questions asked (other than: "what the fuck is our midfield going to do?"). To suggest that we should drop him for some right-footed loanee from Watford who isn't any quicker than him and worse on the ball would just be crazy (and a little disrespectul). Considine is one of the best left backs in the league and it's obvious that wingers don't like playing against him as he gets right up their airses and is aggressive in the challenge. If we're going to replace him, then it has to be with someone as good as Shinnie or else it just isn't worth it. Considine gives something entirely different, and if you don't replace it with something good then you'll lose a lot. I'm not saying Considine is amazing, I'm saying that he's a hell of a lot better than most people give him credit for and should never be passed off as "the weak link" because he hasn't been that since he was a loon getting sent off against the tims. However, if we want to change the style of play siginificantly then there are obvious limitations to Considine's game. He's not a wing back in a five, and he's not a player that can play left of the back three. These are easily recognisable weaknesses that - inexplicably - McInnes ignored in several of the "big" games last season. Those two positions play into his weakness, which is speed on the turn. They allow a winger to get the run on him, which doesn't occur in the left of four where he can sit right on them. In a back three, you can simply switch McKenna and Considine with McKenna's additional pace allowing him to easily deal with the winger issue (as he's played for Scotland). If we're going to be playing a lot with a back five then I do think we need to look at the left wing back area or the centre midfield area. To me, the more obvious solution is to get a better centre midfielder than Gleeson or Ball and allow Shinnie to continue at left back, but I realise that type of midfielder doesn't grow on trees (neither that type of left back).

I don't think McKenna will be going anywhere in this window. I also think that we may have seen the last of our business. The trial of Wright through the middle was telling (in my opinion). I think that's going to be our "like a new signing" moment, and one I have no particular issue with. I think McInnes will have been concerned with Forrester's performances so far in that role and will have wanted cover, but I think he'll struggle to improve on Wright (unless Christie is released by the Tims and he decides to take a punt). With Logan back, if he's unsure about Gleeson then he can just shift Ball into midfield. We've got through the matches with Logan missing so I just can't see us bringing in another defender with McKenna and Hoban back soon.

Weird like. Some shite on the BBC on Friday about his departure from the Hun being the hardest moment in his life or some shite. I'd have sacked him for that pish as well, he's a manager he needs to lead by example and not be moaning about something that occurred at a different club. Strange one anyway though, I'd have thought he'd do okay given his general fitness and perceived (by me) professionalism. He's maybe an absolute cockpiece who the players hate. Management career over before it's started I'd have thought. No easy way back fae that.

I never knew that, interesting. They weren't in the booing mood yesterday, which is strange given how fuckin dire they were.

Why do you call them this? You're the only person I've seen/heard call them this, what's the story behind it? Not a criticism, just unsure of its roots.

Doesn't really work when they got the hardest tie in the round this time though does it?

Nah, I was right behind it, going about a ball circumference past but the keeper was right to be on the safe side as it was a close thing (although Lewis would have let it go, or actually probably just gathered it because he's ace). Speaking of Lewis, called into action once today in a one on one and you just knew he had it completely covered. Closed the space in a tenth of a second; just class. Agree about the Wright and Jess comparison although I'd probably put him at the same level today as Christie at the beginning of last season. Just need him to be given the opportunity to do it against Hibs, and hopefully in that central role too. It's easy to do it (play Wright and Ross etc) in the games that you expect to win, but you need to risks here and there in the bigger games too. We don't have to go wild, so retain McGinn in place of Ross, but definitely start Wright. Ball played well today, put in some excellent balls down the line so be interesting to see if he gets a slot in midfield once Logan returns to right back. At the moment I'd put him ahead of Gleeson.

Didn't really take his opportunity. Decent, but nae great, but nae shite either. Better than Forrester I'd say though. We were ace though, and they were gash. Some great movement in and around the box and good attacking play. Wright was really good and has to start in that role next week. May made a lot of good runs and worked hard, GMS excellent, the back four very good and Ferguson made some great passes. Gleeson moved the ball about well, although I'd like to see a bit more movement from him left and right when they've got the ball, but an improvement. Forrester wasn't great when he came on for Ross who was better but nae brilliant (although looks to have beefed up significantly). Anderson looked decent, definitely got an eye for goal. Hit a decent volley (going wide) that May or Cosgrove would have tried to control and would thus have, inevitably, lost the opportunity - great instincts. MacLennan looked okay too, with little time to do much. Difficult to gain any insight today though as they were fucking horrendous. A lot to think about for McInnes for next week, as we were very slick at times today. If anything comes from it, it has to be Wright playing through the middle again. They couldn't handle him, and he supported May really well. I hope we don't revert to type.

There was no comparison, people were simply discussing it, there's a difference. I see this a lot in political discussion these days, people mistaking comparison with conflation, it's frustrating. Like you can't use examples to illustrate any point without being accused of invalid argument or, worse, having offending someone. It's completely valid to compare Arsenal's experience in moving from an old historic ground to us moving from an old historic ground. It is not valid to discuss the problems of building a 90,000 seater stadium. There are possibly valid comparisons with Arsenal building a ground designed for the corporate fan and what we're doing (I've no idea). Basically anything that doesn't talk as if we have an endless pot of cash and a massive support that requires a giant stadium is valid for comparison. There are very valid comparisons to be made and certainly lessons to be learned. We're not building the Madjeski, so why the comparison I don't know.

I think that is an incredibly harsh view of Hayes' last couple of (at least) seasons with us. His work rate was insane, and he nearly always offered a threat. When he was struggling to beat a man he never gave up and never gave the player time in defence or attack. It's why I don't think the Tims will offer him to anyone, he'll be a reliable member of their squad who'll fill a hole whenever called upon.

They don't contain player salaries though. Just some/all directors.

We don't need to say anything because there are reasonably clear guidelines which the panel will look at. They will not respond to shitey paper talk or base their decisions on what Hamilton rep said in the Sun. There is no conspiracy either way (if anything the conspiracy would likely favour us as the bigger team), they'll base the value on development cost (as per the rules) and Hamilton's offer to the player in writing and any offers they received in writing prior to our signing him. It's absurd that any discussions are even happening in public, I'm not sure what Hamilton think they'll gain.

But it isn't more than that. In the same way as B&Q isn't more than a shop just because there's a burger van next door, or the Stirling services aren't still shite because they've got a Starbucks. Soulless doesn't mean lacking character and individuality, those are architectural qualities of which Kingsford may or may not possess (I have no idea). Soulless is about meaning and lacking of human qualities. That's the entire point. Driving somewhere, getting out, doing your activity, driving home again - that's where the soullessness comes from. No matter who busy Portlethen Asda is, it's entirely soulless and Kingsford is Portlethen Asda in all but the signage. That's a very partisan view of the process, the club had years to get Loirston sorted if they'd wanted to. The council offered several other sites which were discounted because we "needed" a 25hectare/acre (can't remember which - shitey unit of measure anyway) site. Kings Links fell into that category. The club deliberately stipulated a size that they knew would be too big in order to back up their planning application - they had already decided on Kingsford. There is zero requirement for training and stadium together, with only marginal benefit that could easily be discounted. But you're right, it's beside the point, they gave the planning because that was what was put forward, which is all the council are required to do. Prime four does not bring money into the city. Have you been there or worked there? Nearly every single company that's there could have located in the city centre. It's a commuter unit dressed as an industrial estate. You drive there, and drive home, bringing your sandwiches (or use the village or Entier's "Fresh" cafe (it's not bad actually)). It's exactly what Kingsford is, the perfect example. It's a self-contained unit designed not to integrate with anything else, built in conjunction with no-one for the benefit of only itself. It's like a Stewart Milne housing development. A self-contained pre-designed entity plonked in whichever location would have them. To compare it the city of Rome thing is, you would surely admit, ridiculous? First, the club are behind the entire Rome development (like AFC are) not the council. It's the equivalent of Trump's Balmedie "resort". It has three rail links. Let's not be stupid here, the two aren't remotely comparable and if that's what you're hoping for then lift your head for a second and look at the Kingsford location. The council have their hands tied here even if they wanted to "maximise" the development. They have no room to develop on the Westhill side, outside the city boundary. It's on green belt land, with privately owned green belt land either side. Not far off, there's a massive road. The stretch of road Kingsford is on is already overwhelmed at peak times, adding more housing or anything else would require completely new infrastructure (and would face years of planning). They can't bring the city out to the ground over time, because it's on the wrong side of the road that is being built to go round the city. Any development that could occur would be tiny due to lack of space. It would be utterly unserved by the city and nobody from the city would ever consider going there. By any logical viewpoint, anything beyond the bypass isn't really Aberdeen and it wouldn't surprise me if boundaries were re-drawn in the future. It's absurd that we've only just built a bypass after 30 years and already AFC have tried to shift the city outwith it. I know you're trying to be positive about it, and I fully understand that, but take a good serious look at the Kingsford location. Look at what surrounds it, look at what doesn't surround it and look at it's position in relation to the city and how it integrates. Point out to me where you think development could occur at a scale that would really make a difference, and really bring Kingsford into the city and make it a part of the city. The sort of development that will make Kingsford more than just a decade long succesful stadium. One that can suffer the Paterson years and the McGhee years and still garner a full house 115 years later. By any objective measure, there is nothing else there and there never will be. By any objective measure, it's not in Aberdeen; the bypass boundary has been drawn. Take a good hard look at that location. It's so short-termist it's unreal. Tell me what I'm missing about Kingsford that makes it a hidden gem. There's more to a ground than the ground itself - that's what we should take from that article that you posted. Kingsford is 100% the ground itself - there is nothing else. I must be missing something? Surely to fuck we're not moving because "oh well, it's handy for the bypass"? I think I need enlightened, there can't be this much support for it if it is as fucking stupid as I think it is (it seems to get worse everytime I look at it).

I'd very much hope they can't. They could possibly get fed info by agents, but I'd take that with a huge pinch of salt.

How do you know any of this?

"AFC, buzzing Monday to Sunday". Come on min, that's manufactured pish. It isn't Aberdeen's home and it won't be if those are the plans. That's not sustainable in the slightest, nobody has any reason to go to the middle of nowhere in their car for a coffee and memorial garden in memory of something that existed somewhere else. If that was viable, they'd have had a dons coffee shop and museum where the broadhill is 15 years ago. They'll add a coffee shop when building the stadium because it's easy to do but it's not going to be raking it in due to lack of footfall. The reason St Johnstone, and Pittodrie, have just a shop and ticket office is because that's what people go to those places to use during the midweek (less and less so with online purchasing). Hmmm, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not? That will be nothing like AFC's proposal; the exact opposite. Throwing in the "£50m" as if we should ultimately bow to the mention of money. The amount of money is completely irrelevant (also, it's fuck all), it's being used to purchase/build an asset for AFC, nothing else. The council do not owe AFC anything. If they've built the ground in a place that's unsuitable for surrounding development and that doesn't tie in with future development of the city then it's entirely AFC's fault. They didn't involve the council, they acted independently and they put it in a shite location as they're entitled to do. The council's "vision" shouldn't incorporate AFC's lack of vision. They've built in green belt fucking land, at the opposite side of the city bypass (the clue is in the fucking name) from the actual city itself. Do you genuinely believe that there will be further useful development between Westhill and the AWPR that will positively affect the stadium? Do you think AFC think that? I understand your enthusiasm, but I genuinely think it's misplaced. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The stadium, coffee shop etc is it. That's the development.

He's out of contract in May. If the tims let him go then we pay a signing on fee of £100K and offer him £3K per week.

Given his age, as TheDeeDon points out, do you think that it is because he's the best suited? I don't think it's pandering on a ridiculous level mind you, just seems a little bit forced. For what it's worth, I'd like to see Eddie Murphy given the opportunity. He was excellent in Police Academy with those sound effect vocals he used to do. Classic Murphy. I think he'd bring something to the role.

I think he'd be a great signing on a permanent deal. He faded last season, and I thought he struggled to develop a good playing relationship with McGinn for some reason, but I think that he's still a good player with the ability to pull something from nowhere.

I hope he isn't the next Bond. Just to wind folk up really. They've made a thing out of something that didn't need to be and I think that it's a shame. Just make Elba the next Bond, don't build it up like it's some sort of breakthrough moment for black people or - in reverse - some sort of glass-ceiling that subconscious racism was preventing from happening. People saying "I think it would be great if one day there could be a black James Bond" are probably as much a part of the problem as those outraged by it. Just let things happen and people make decisions without influence. He's an actor who seems to be in the right mould to play James Bond, so get it done and let's see him in some films. The "celebration" behind it just holds things back in my opinion, it makes decisions like these obligatory and unnatural and subsequently not progressive. It just all seems a bit contrived. It takes away from his suitability for the role I think. Maybe it has to be this way, I'm not sure.

Fair doos But why? Surely it's a forum and the debate over whether a new signing is good enough, what our first impressions are and how they fit into the team (or not) is exactly what we should be doing? I'm not saying he's a dick who we should start booing. I shouldn't even have to caveat with the fact that it's early on and far too early to judge the guy because that should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain, Moreover, my thoughts on that are utterly irrelevant because it's a simple fact that its far too early to judge him regardless of what I say - isn't that obvious? The problem is that you quoted my post and yet you still haven't addressed its central point of "where do you see him fitting in and in what formation?". You're basically saying that I shouldn't begin to form an opinion, is that correct? You're suggesting that there are "keyboard warriors out there who seem to take issue with anyone who does not share their point of view" but you don't back that up with anything. You're not "not sharing my point of view" you're telling me not to have one, you must notice the important difference here? If you said: "I think you're wrong about Gleeson, he put in an excellent through ball for Ferguson against the hun (he did) and I think that we could see more of that if we had Shinnie in there to give him more time on the ball", I'd have seen your point. Why not share your thoughts on Gleeson and tell us where you think his strengths are and how you think he'll fit into a McInnes eleven? You'd get far more support on here for putting forward the positives than I would putting across the negatives, so you'd be winning the argument instead of not even having one. For balance, I'm still all for May getting a regular game because I think that we might still be able to turn his career around (and I wasn't that please by his signing either). I'm not trying to be a dick by arguing with you on this, it's just I get a bit fed up of being told to "get behind the team" (I've had a season ticket for over 20 years and I don't remember ever booing) or other such nonsense on a forum. This is the place for discussion and disagreement, that's its purpose. I'll be very much behind Gleeson at the weekend.

A decent read, cheers Dunty. I'm not sure where Aberdeen's stadium fits in to it in a positive way? Whilst it's not entirely relevant to Scottish fitba given the disparity in funds it certainly gives food for thought. Dunty, you are for the new stadium, when you read this does it not make you concerned about the move? If we go on the examples in the article it's very clear that we are ripping the heart out of the club by moving out of the city (I didn't need an article to tell me that). That leaves a few options: The first is that we re-create that heart by creating something phenomenal - a really good design that alleviates all the other problems because the design in itself is the heart and the attraction. Does anyone seriously believe that's what will be done, or believe that's possible? The second is that the cooncil come up with a new city plan. We extend the city out and put the stadium at the heart of it in terms of access and visibility. We bring the city to the stadium as such. Folk will say that's bound to happen anyway, and it possibly will, but it needs to be deliberate and it needs to be integrated and planned. Not some Killie ground surrounded by housing estates (which is what will happen), but surrounded by community and other stuff that attracts people toward it. We've gone out on a whim with no support and no integration. We've treated the club like an individual rather than part of something bigger and I think that we still have time to address that. The third option is to completely re-define the club. Change it's identity completely. Perhaps not as full on as a name change, but certainly a change of focus. Creating the idea of an Aberdeenshire FC (again, don't call it that if you don't want) would be more apt in the proposed location. That's what this new stadium caters to, so lets not pretend it doesn't and actively pursue that goal if that's what we're doing as part of our strategy (is there a strategy?). Westhill isn't in the city, so lets stop fannying about pretending it is and pretending that in some way this club and location is representative of the city. A new start with a new identity is what we're proposing, solet's not lie about it and embrace it. If that means a clean cut off for existing fans then so be it. I don't think people are really thinking about this move at all. Certainly not beyond the first decade of its existence. Saying that "we need to do something" doesn't cut it anymore, it's simply not true nor does it help.