RicoS321

That is not evidence of a reduction in capacity to 12.5K though, is it? That's the point.

I won't get behind it, and it's that sort of pandering bullshite that put me off the new stadium (not the location, surprisingly). "We all need to get behind it". Seriously? Without asking basic questions? You were on dons mad, where there were 20, 400 post threads on the huns demise, with some intricate details and great challenging questions posed. We criticised the huns for net asking simple questions and believing ridiculous statements put out by their club, because of a ridiculous partisan feeling, rather than objectively looking at the statements. The "facts" about re-developing Pittodrie are exactly the same as the shite put out by the huns. You have no evidence to back up the 20,000 capacity statement, because we've never been party to any. Unless you have some evidence that you can share? Look at the statement at the AGM about the new stadium: "we will have a capacity of around 20,000". So less than 20,000 then? Or, put another way, if money is tight it'll be the first thing that is reduced. We could easily end up with an 18K stadium that isn't even in our city (because it fuckin isn't). I'm cool with that, I'm not sure we need a 20K stadium anyway, but it does lead us back to Pittodrie. We've been told that Pittodrie would have to be reduced to 12.5K capacity in order to fit within the current site. Yet we've seen absolutely no evidence to back that figure up. We do know that if you removed the entire South stand, you would still have a 12.5K capacity. That suggests that the figure of 12.5K is absolutely ludicrous, or a lie. I'm going with lie. A lie of Dave King proportion. Or Dave Cameron proportion. It just doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny, and hasn't been backed by evidence. Why would this be? Because if the board produced a document that said we could only rebuild Pittodrie to say 17.5K or some other much more realistic figure, folk would really begin to question the move to a new stadium of "around 20K". Instead, they've given a 12.5K figure and provided no figures or drawings to back it up so that no-one would be crazy enough to suggest we stayed. As to finance and services, we're raising 25M of non-stadium reliant financing (i.e. financing that could be raised even if we're staying: rights issue, stadium naming, mortgage etc) in order to move from Pittodrie. Whilst there might be services to be moved, I'm pretty sure that we could re-develop a significant volume of Pittodrie for that figure, so the question is, how much? I have to admit, it's a fantastic play by Milne, and not necessarily a sinister one (I have no evidence to suggest it is, and I don't think it is). We've been told over and over and over that we can't re-develop Pittodrie to the extent that people now believe it, as the boy Orwell put it: "But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary." Yet none of has seen any evidence that backs up 12.5K figure - which is the key to it all. I can accept that we're moving stadium, and I can even accept the shite location. I can't accept that we've been given the facts and that as a club and a support we've been given a choice. Moronic statements like "lets all get behind it" are the exact reason we end up with the politicians that we do, the inequality we do in this country and the reason that people up and down the country are trampled upon on a daily basis by people like Stewart Milne (caveat: I actually quite like Stewarty). It's partisan, unquestioning, insipid, spineless bullshit. The sort of behaviour I'd expect from thick huns.... I'm causing trouble a little here with those last two statements, I know, but I believe I'm right. If I'm not right, then show me why, with evidence. I'm ready to get right behind the club on the stadium move.

Nobody was going through anybody at that point in the game. We hadn't touched the ball for them to go through us. I'd argue we need mair poofs. Extra poofs, that's fit I'd say.

No it isn't.

That dish looks like it came fae the eighties. Good work!

I'd rather we didn't fund the stadium.... and I winna be buying into a rights issue. Cunts.

It was alongside Shinnie, but aye, that 4-2-3-1 rather than the half arsed 4-5-1 type with Maddison out wide. The flat 3 of Shinnie, McLean and Jack just seems to confuse them and that was obvious in the huns game and again at the weekend. McLean was the only one moving the ball quickly, and put in a few good passes as well as a couple of decent interceptions at the weekend. The fact that he looked like a fanny when he avoided the challenge didn't help him, but he was never getting there before the Tim. We have to remember that the players would have been told not to put in any rash challenges as you really can't against the tims; Brown's disgusting attempt to get Jack sent off later in the game is evidence of that (when did that stop being a booking?).

For large spells of the first half we had Hayes up front and Rooney out wide. That knackered Hayes and also didn't seem to help Rooney who barely touched the ball. Moving Rooney wide is a shite tactic that hasn't worked yet (actually, he did get a goal when coming in late to the box once I mine). Hampden is a big pitch for someone like Rooney to be whooring around back and forth with a midfield that was told to sit very deep.

Absolutely this. Shinnie was all over the place on Sunday, and was just as at for the first goal. McLean came in late after being expected to mark the winger two seconds earlier, he would have only managed to foul the player (Brown?) as he was easily second favourite for the ball. He was right to pull out as he should have been able to rely on Shinnie to cover Rogic. The ball went out wide, there should have been no danger. Anyway, Shinnie is a must at left back and show some trust in the McLean/Jack pairing that worked very well in the previous game. To add, McLean was immense in the game against the tims at Pittodrie last season alongside Storie. He never shat out of a challenge that day, just as he didn't at the weekend - he made, in hindsight, a bad choice not to go through the player and take a booking.

I am pretty convinced as well. It seemed to me that it was more a case of the fact that we're playing the huns at the weekend and it would be disrespectful (to our manager) to suggest that we should be absolutely finishing above them. We certainly have no right to, and I would expect Milne to have said the same if it were Hearts next to us. If McInnes wants to state that anything less than second is unacceptable, I'd be happy with that - but it's his choice to issue that call as manager, not the chairman's. The reason I'm convinced is that Stewarty disnae like losing in anything he does. He would hate it if we finished behind the huns. He's also a grippy cunt, and if they chose to spend £1M in January, he wouldn't attempt to match it, but that's a different thing altogether.

McLean did alright, so you were only half right.

Aye, it's pretty much all been said. I actually thought McLean had a decent game, moved the ball quickly and well, switching play a lot and bringing Maddison into the game with time and space. However, he was part of an unbalanced midfield who didn't know where either player was going to be and often had to react to them getting the ball after it was too late - he was left chasing the game (at the goal especially, I thought he was correct to assume his defenders could handle the threat and not bring down the man). I thought Shinnie was our worst midfielder today. Annoyingly, as everyone has pointed out, the answer was available to us in the previous few games, with McLean and Jack performing well recently, there was simply no need to upset the balance. Two of our goals wouldn't have been conceded if Considine was at left centre half. O'Connor was terrible, as he has been in that side of the defence previously. He can't play with the ball on his left side, it's a massive weakness in his game and it was obvious the last time he played there (against the huns I think, after Taylor went off?). He ushered Forrest onto his (O'Connor's) wrong side for the second and couldn't get back in to block the shot and then gave away a penalty attempting to go for it with his wrong foot. It just wouldn't have happened with Considine or even Reynolds there. He also got caught on the ball a few times because he was coming out of defence with the ball on his wrong foot and he didn't have the strength to be able to pass it out with his left so he kept having to turn back, it was horrible to watch. So, aye, as everyone else has pointed out, McInnes made a total cunt of it. Basic errors in team selection that led to basic errors on the pitch. There is no shame in losing 3-0 to a good confident Celtic side, there is a shame in losing 3-0 when specifically setting your team up to not lose. As soon as you do that, it rubs off on the players and they play like they can't win. Furthermore, playing Hayes up front for more than 20 minutes in the first half totally knackered him. It's Rooney's job, and one he's fit enough and good enough to do. Hayes should have been roasting thon shite left back all day long. McInnes better not get it wrong against der Hun.

Shame. A revolutionary guy.

Aye, cause we're struggling for really shite food at our fitba grounds.

Aye, the first part was a bit shite. Bit of a Trump love-in. However the last ten is excellent. Especially this on around 30 minutes: “They (banks) are not private companies…. they are bureaucracies through which….society is run” Fit a quote. Totally nails it. Anyway, princes of the yen for those who haven't seen it afore:

Fuck me min Malaga, you might have warned us aboot the Davie Dodds close up. McKimmie was some player (as was Grant), fit a cross for the third.

Aye, that's what I thought. Cheers for yer advice though, I will get someone in to check it oot. Probably a Hungarian, there pretty cheap.

Trade them in.

Fucking hell, had to go back 5 pages for the politics thread. Is Donstalk being dumbed down with the influx of WYOWYN threads (that disnae mean stop)? It's an interesting thought. Anyway, here is Catherine Austin-Fitts with an excellent point of view on the current financial system (in the US, but applicable here too). Last ten minutes definitely sums up the fed pretty and monetary policy well, with some pretty explosive accusations too:

Letter fae the queen?

Pressure was near 2 bar lastnight when I checked it. A blockage in the cold feed sounds likely. Should I start hacking up pipes and shit?

Good stuff, decent effort. Good article ina.

It's like a big St Mirren. We don't need a new stadium. There is no evidence to back that up that has been made available. I'll keep stating that until someone shows me otherwise. Intrigued to hear the goal of UEFA top 100. What does that mean? 100 best teams? Or something that takes into account stadium and training facilities (and number of corporate seats for UEFA delegates)? Also, the offices. Is that for the club I assume, not for let? They seem to be making a decent fist of it this time anyway, although that was also the case with Loirston. I see no issues with planning, I reckon it'll sail through.... and then be converted to hooses when naebody buys Pittodrie.

I was fucking raging when we went for Calderwood, absolutely hated him, just came across as a total cunt and played shite fitba. Was certain he was in the same mold as Alex Miller, but I was partly proved wrong by Calderwood's relative success. Was glad when we got rid of him too, but in between him signing and his last season, I marginally warmed to him.

That was some team. Tanked them.