RicoS321

It's got some interesting parts, don't get me wrong, but when within 3 minutes they have introduced Jabba as one of their main commenters, you know that its going to pander. The hibs, hearts bits are interesting too as are the dundee merger bits. I hope the next part is a little more in depth though. It seems its just another presentation of the facts, with a few token gestures from the usual suspects, rather than an investigation - which is what's required. That doesn't seem to happen these days.

Just watched it. A show about Celtic and Rangers, with some token acknowledgements here and there. Sums up the period perfectly.

I suspect that there's an element of both, but if you look back to the last couple of teams to produce some half decent youngsters, Utd and Hibs, 50% of them were snapped up by the scum. I suppose you could argue that if we all produced great young players then the difference between our young players and the imported youth of the Tims would mean we wouldn't have to spend to bride the gap, but that ignores the fact that the overwhelming financial gap would result in the Tims or Huns just buying up the best young players as they always did in the past (Dariusz Adamczuk anyone?). So I'd agree, our kids not playing football causes an issue, but addressing that would still leave a massive gap, which widens every year Celtic get into the champions league (coupled with the fact that media attention is reserved solely for the scum). I also agree about the administrators ignoring the signs, but think that is only half the issue. To me the issue stretches much further than the SFA and requires government - Scottish and UK - involvement (or let's say, it's the government's fault). The design of every new housing development ensures absolute housing coverage, with no room for kids outwith their own gardens, or the hanging around in front of the few shops that were required as part of the planning process. Traditional working class areas, which might have spawned the best in fitba talent, are now massive housing sinks, designed specifically for folk to drive to their front door, watch TV, and drive back to work again. Any fun (i.e. a kick about at fitba) has been entirely commoditised in the form of a Goals, Stikers etc., with even the skills and training side of these things being paid for often. That puts it in direct competition with other stuff that was always traditionally paid for, such as tennis, golf and so forth. It's no longer that easy to just go for a kick about with yer mates (kids near me would have to walk about two miles, through a myriad of paedophiles - probably). You have to assume that yer average fitba administrator isnae very bright, nor dis he have much influence (Doncaster, Regan, Mitchell, Smith etc.) outwith being a yes man for a handful of fitba team chairmen, so he's probably not going to persuade a cooncillor or government official in the pocket of a large hoosebuilder to give up six plots in order to build a park with room for a fitba game. Anyway, we probably agree in the main.

But they're not spending outwith their means. They'll be making a significant profit this season, which will backfill any losses in the last few years. It's just that their means are unfair and reduce football to a non-sport. As Jute says, the money (all European money) should go to the league. I said when the huns went bust that I'd happily have them allowed back in to the 1st division if it meant we moved to a 16 team league, with all euro and league prize money (less travel expenses) being split evenly between the teams. Everyone starts with the same budget other than gate receipts. A proper level playing field. Everyone gets stronger together, or not at all. The reason I said 16 teams also, was that if we had split the revenues from the previous season that year, every single team bar one would have been better off than they were, from 2nd to 16th. But, more importantly, it would have put an end to the 4 scum games, and the weight that other clubs put on the regular visits of the cheeks, which allowed them to even consider allowing the huns to re-emerge unpunished. I also said that if we didn't change things, we'd be back to the pre-Sevco status quo within 5 years, with no leverage and no further opportunity for change. Our game is now hinging on the huns going bust again. It can't be understated how bad it is for Scottish football that the tims qualify and the huns re-build. It'll ruin the game. Maybe not this season, or next, but in a few years time we'll feel it.

There's nothing particularly controversial in those questions. Some such as light and noise pollution are easily mitigated (or soft issues), but the parking and transport is a fucking ridiculous situation. It isn't workable.

Last time we played at Parkhead Shinnie had to be removed from left back and replaced by Considine as Shinnie was really struggling there, and we played better as a result. I think McInnes will hope for that type of outcome rather than Considine's prior performances. I think there was more to the Aucho deal than is being said. I suspect we got him here with a real view to signing him but the terms of the deal were changed after he arrived. Although perhaps we're being harsh and we have a player lined up but due to the nuance of the transfer window we can't sign him until later in that window. I'd have thought any loan deals must be happening soon if there were to be also, as Engurland have been back for a couple of weeks now.

This. A real blow to have Jack out. A midfielder should have been sorted out weeks ago. A chance for Storie to step up in place of Jack with McLean instead of Pawlett at the weekend perhaps.

Not massively. I went to a couple of the games in the last campaign, but won't bother with this one at all. The only thing that does annoy is that I expect(ed) better of Strachan. He left Middlesborough and criticised his own performance and didn't take a pay off to which he was entitled. I assumed he'd be the type to learn from his mistakes and seek to improve himself. He must've learned at Georgia away that "picking the players that haven't let me down" isn't pertinent to International football. There should be a core team who you rely on of 4-6 players, who are too good to drop, but the rest should be open season. Guys who have been under-performing for months at club level are instantly expected to transform into confident and competent performers the minute they turn out for Scotland. He effectively ignores form. It's a sign of weakness and stubbornness. I'd expect it of McGhee, but I genuinely didn't mind Strachan before he got the Scotland gig, now I think he's just a cock. His comments about the game in this country should be sackable offence also.

Who the fuck is Oliver Burke? And why is he, hun boy or bannan better than Fraser, or Arfield, or Rhodes, or McCormack, or Shinnie, or Jack? And Jack fuckin Hamilton? The boy looked average at best. Fit aboot young Neil Alexander?

Did you not see Considine skinning their right back on the goal line and dinking in a beautiful cross? It was class. To be fair, Shinnie had another excellent game in midfield and with Jack missing I'm not sure we'd have had any bite in there with McLean being poor again. I thought Considine was okay too, offers a target at the back post, more so as the game wore on. I thought yesterday highlighted (to me, anyway!) that O'Connor is not the answer in midfield. A great player, who can pick a pass, but he doesn't have the mobility and seemed to get pushed further back as the pressure came on to him. He reminds me of Arneson a lot. A great player, very comfortable on the ball, but just a wee bit slow for midfield. What we benefit from having him in midfield, we lose twice as much by him not being in defence. I think McInnes might try a back 3 against the Tims. We need another midfielder to ensure O'Connor plays his best position. You're right though, it was very conservative. More so when we went 2 up, the subs were terrible. McInnes obviously felt it was more important to practice for next week rather than going for more goals and getting the attacking confidence up. Pawlett was playing far better than McLean, but was predictably subbed on 60 minutes. McInnes has his favourites and that was obvious when he couldn't even leave a deservedly dropped Taylor on the bench for a full 90, with a contrived substitution. We seemed to lose any momentum after the atrocious piece of refereeing to stop the game for a leg injury on the half way line while we were on the attack. That incident highlighted a lack of leadership from the bench. The ball was right up near the corner flag, but we allowed the drop ball near the halfway line lamely allowing the pass back to our keeper. The decision by the ref was terrible. You can't talk to refs anymore as it's a booking* so we need to target our frustrations in other ways. McInnes should have been screaming at them to contest the ball right up the other end of the pitch and keep the pressure on, there was really nothing to lose and a good chance we'd have got a corner at worst. It set the tone for the rest of the game, where we just sat back and did nothing. Finally, we need to accept ICT's loan request for Wright. He's not going to get any game time. He should have been on that pitch with 20 minutes to go (for McGinn) if we're going to trust him at all. It was crying out for a different attacking threat and someone who'll take the game to them at their end of the pitch. The predictable sub of Rooney for Stockley (to play up front on his own - it doesn't fucking work Deek) was embarrassing. I thought McInnes got a lot wrong yesterday, and it prevented us winning easily. A lot to prove next week. *does not apply to Scott Brown

Shame. Could see this turning into a Cammy Smith situation like. He'll sit on our bench for the next six months getting two minutes of game time here and there before being loaned out to a lower league team next season. Despite Smith performing well for the Arabs it seems, we'll learn nothing about him playing in that league and we'll get back a player who still isn't ready for our first team. If we could get Wright some SPL game time, then I think a 6 month loan would be very much in our interests. Maybe concerned that Foran might nail him in training.

No, I'm not advocating that. Clearly (is that really how you interpreted it?). I'm pointing out how ridiculous the 12,000 figure, as even removing the South stand altogether and replacing with a wall would leave 12,000 capacity. But you're right, it's not the correct thread.

First, the club is moving forward. Nobody is halting it from moving. I don't care enough about the move to question it, and neither do most other fans I can only assume. But there is absolutely no denying that moving was put forward before any investigation on re-developing Pittodrie was ever done and that the evidence showing Pittodrie couldn't be re-developed was generated to suit the desire to move and is exceptionally sparse. There has also never been a poll of fans done by the club in advance of any plans being pursued asking whether they want to move - which is staggering. As far as I'm aware, it's not been done to death, and the evidence proves this, and it most certainly isn't blindingly obvious - nor simple tom - why the current location isn't suitable. If it was simple then that simple information would be available in the public domain in the form of a simple stadium plan that could be objectively challenged. A simple outline stadium with depth of stands, area of concourse and size of pitch. That doesn't exist in the public domain and because of this the 12,000 comes across as ludicrous. That would mean that more than the entire capacity of the South Stand wouldn't be available if we re-developed (we could have 3 stands and a wall where the South stand is and still have more than 12,000 seats). All we've seen from the club are statements and the 12,000 figure. I personally don't think it passes basic scrutiny. This is where I really have an issue. We don't need to piss away huge amount of money to draw up plans for a stadium. Why? Because that information already exists - we've already done those plans. We must have. There is no other way we could have objectively decided to leave Pittodrie otherwise. If those plans don't exist then my assertions are surely correct? I'm not talking about a full-scale planning application obviously, just an outline drawing of available area, with X being depth/size of concourse Y being required pitch and surround space, leaving Z as our four stands with available stand-depths. From this, stand height and number of seats can be calculated. A transparent, objective presentation with information that has to already have been provided by the club if they are acting in the interest of its fans. Does that sound unreasonable? I'm not suggesting the club is wrong in their assessment, I'm saying that I - as a season ticket holder of 20 odd years - have not been given the information I need to support their move to a new stadium (I'm not boasting about length of service to you older cunts like, I'm merely making the point that a returning customer should really be in possession of the facts!). I've seen plenty of conjecture, and plenty of statements and figures, but no evidence. I don't believe you can actually say that you have enough information to form an objective opinion either, can you? In terms of the cost, my only point on this is that one I made to Reidzer. We're raising upward of £25M for the new stadium (cost - sale of Pittodrie), none of which is predicated on moving. If it were a neutral project, with no preferences or outside interference or influence, I would expect to see options laid out for me on the table that as a season ticket holder/member of a community club/asset (where Milne and co are mere custodians) I could make an informed decision. It shouldn't matter to Milne where we reside, but it clearly does - he has skin in the game, somewhere. Again, I don't think that's unreasonable.

But ye were right, though. It's just the investment strategy that's the problem. We could be, and have been, so much better at it. We're raising upwards of £25M for a new stadium apparently. Questions have to be raised over the best way to spend those funds. I disagree with Rocket's assessment that the agenda of one man is not the same as the fans though. Years of badgering, negativity and repeated lies mean that the agenda of one man is now firmly the same as the fans. I hear very few dissenting voices against the stadium within our support. The unchallenged "Pittodrie can't be re-developed" is now firmly a fact in the eyes of most dandies. I've still to see the plans for the 12,000 seat stadium that would only be possible in place of the existing stands to allow myself an objective position on the matter.

Actually, in this case, I think you misunderstand the process. Milne would need to either dilute shareholding (of all shareholders) or provide a loan in order to invest. As he doesn't own the club (don't even think he's the biggest shareholder?) then he can't make that decision on his own - thankfully. He'd have to go to the shareholders for a rights issue - which I definitely think he'll do for the new stadium funds - if he was thinking big investment, provide a loan from himself or SMG as per his current preference share holding (to be repaid on sale of Pittodrie perhaps?). Or provide guarantees on a bank loan or overdraft, which would be difficult to do given our recent debt clearance. There are plenty of other mechanisms of course, but these avenues would really only be explored in the event that they were looking at big investment as they will be for the stadium. The investment of £500K for players will come directly from the club if the club feels it can afford it, not Milne. Duncan Fraser will be in charge of that.

There's clearly money to spend, I reckon we'll add another one at least before the windae closes. We're shopping in a sparse market though. Also, I don't want Milne's fucking money. He's got us over a barrel as it is. The huns can spunk their laundered cash on has been EPL fucks if they like. I hope we never even begin on that road again.

Aye, but, Johnny Hayes.

I think that's a little harsh on Pawlett, he had a decent first half and caused them a few problems. Regarding McLean and Burns, the biggest problem we have is predictability. I said to my mate at half time that Rooney and McLean would be on very quickly in the second half. I wasn't sure whether it would be Burns or Pawlett that would make way however. McInnes has his favourites, and it's obvious - so it must be obvious to both them and the players that are making way for them. Since he's been here, McInnes' preferred starters are given disproportionate opportunities to impress. Consider Pawlett of last season and Smith in the last two (Low, Shug, Wright etc are similar). When given a start they were always taken off early in the second half. When on the bench, they would be taken on late in the second half. If McGinn is dropped, he nearly always gets 30+ minutes to impress. If McGinn is playing badly, he rarely gets under 75 minutes on the pitch. To me it's a huge flaw in McInnes' strategy, because it's so obvious. If I'm Pawlett or Smith, I'm immediately under pressure as I know I'm going to get hooked early and if I'm sitting on the bench I know that the guy who's having a shite game is going to get 80 minutes and I'm going to have to charge around for the last 8 minutes just to justify having a shower. In the Hertz game, there was nothing to suggest that McGinn was suddenly going to come to life. Burns and Pawlett both had better games. McInnes should base his decisions on the game in hand rather than a pre-conceived notion of who the better player is (it's McGinn, obviously). Some will say that McGinn can create something out of nothing and he will one time, however this ignores the silent evidence of the number of games where McGinn is having a poor game and continues this trend for the full 90 minutes, offering nothing. McLean is just another McGinn in this regard (or another Jack last season). He gets a disproportionate time to prove his worthlessness in a single game. If I knew what our subs would be yesterday, then you can bet yer airse that Neilson did too.

Dalian Atkinson. Tasered to death. For being black I assume. Sounds like something that would have happened on Brass Eye.

Cracking final of tennis like. Hope it finishes soon though, I'm needin ma bed. 2-1 Murray 5-5 in fourth. About a hundred breaks of serve.

Think we've got the best Shinnie. Wasn't the case a few years back, but I think Andrew Shinnie's career has stalled a bit. I'd like to see us aim a bit higher. I still think we need a holding midfielder rather than an attacking midfielder. Shinnie and Jack were decent yesterday, but as other have said Shinnie in centre mid means no Shinnie out wide. If we'd had Shinnie at full back instead of what ended up being Reynolds for most of the game, we'd have won that.

No mention of Cammy Smith's 20 minute hat-trick yesterday against Partick? More of the same loon and we'll have ye back in January.

Against Saints at home. Difficult one, but good to be at home. Obviously Sevco and the Tims get home draws against the worst available opponents. We've got this cup in the bag.

I thought he was very good. However, I think he might be a little slow perhaps. Although his positioning was decent yesterday, which will hopefully make up for it. Definitely should start ahead of Taylor.

Aye, that wasn't great. Tired performance like. Would like to have seen McLean off for McGinn rather than Burns. Really go for it. Nevermind, a point not too bad away to Saints.