RicoS321

But he wouldn't be playing for a championship side on his current wages, that's the point, and that's why the offer would be a lot higher. If he was on 3 times the wages, then the offer would be 3 times as much. The correlation between transfer fee and wages plays the largest part in the offering, rather than league a player plays in. That said, I'd expect a championship team to pay more for a championship player because he'd be proven in that environment, similarly I'd expect an SPFL player to receive a higher offer from another SPFL club than if they were signing from the Scottish Championship.

Murray tanks Wawrinka to go through to the final (first Brit in 79 years or some shite) against Djokovic. He's playing well. Even in the games he played badly, he turned on the style to win them. Should be a good final.

You'd have to be a cunt to vote for Hillary too though, so it's swings and roundabouts. I'd vote Trump over Hillary.

I'm not voting. I usually base my vote on whether or not the system is fair/correct and then if there is a candidate (or answer in this case) I'd like to vote for. For example, I didn't vote in the general election, as I think that by voting in that election you're saying that FPTP is a fair system - endorsing it. In the recent local elections, I voted with a big X through the paper as I think the system is fair(ish) but the candidates were all shite. This time, I just don't think the referendum should be happening at all. It's a sham, perfectly illustrated by the Conservative party forming sides. There were absolutely no policies in the Conservative general election campaign that relied on being outwith the EU and there are still none. That party should have split up prior to the election and fought on two separate agendas: Conservative In, Conservative Out if you like. These cunts are paid to make decisions on our political structure - that's the only fucking thing they can do. Yet we're supposed to make the decision for them. We don't need referendums for the EU, just as we didn't independence. We need a party to say "these are the policies in our manifesto, and in order to fulfill that manifesto we will be leaving the EU if we are elected". If they get elected with a majority then job done. If we leave the EU then the tories will be dragging us into a whole set of policies that were not even close to what they were voted into government on the back of - i.e. a set of policies that should have been presented as a separate party. My preference is to leave the EU, but for reasons that haven't even touched the debate (as you say, it's been horrendous) but I have no desire to leave based on the whim of a referendum. When a party appears that states clear policy, and why that policy can't be achieved via membership of the EU (sort of like what UKIP have done) then I'll vote for them. Until then I can't endorse this pish. Ahh, go on then, if I were hypothetically voting in this referendum, I'd put a big X through the paper. There is such a good case for leaving, but it just isn't being made and I don't think the structural political changes - unlike in the independence referendum - would be enough to sway the case for me, on the basis of future opportunity. I'll vote remain in your poll seeing as it isn't real, and that's pretty much what an X results in.

Yep, I don't think he should be in the national team either, but I only think that because I believe he's too old to see out the next campaign. He's definitely a better footballer than Grant Hanley. He's certainly the type of defender we should be looking at, and if there are no younger ones available then he'd be a good choice.

It was a great game yesterday. Great advert for the championship. Hibs worthy winners. I very much enjoyed the pitch invasion too, made for great viewing. I'd like to think that if the hibs had come up to our end of the pitch and started goading us, a fair few dandies would have run on to the pitch and had a go, so I can't really blame der hun for that part. It's the pathetic statements from Sevco that are the problem here. Completely absolving their own fans from blame and actively trying to drag down journalists and the BBC at the same time. Creating exactly the sort of victim mindset that'll encourage this type of behaviour throughout next season. As for the 6 players assaulted... at a televised game in a ground with 60K supporters, all of whom have camera phones, I've yet to see one photo or video of a Rangers player being assaulted. I saw Kenny Miller being approached, and he told the fan to calm down and he walked off the pitch without further confrontation. If such a photo existed, it'd be plastered across the front page of the record. I don't believe it happened. It's interesting that none of the players have been interviewed either. Hopefully I'm proven wrong, as it'd be very sinister if these stories were fabricated.

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that Greer is actually a decent defender. I'd take him for a season. Far more assured than Taylor, a good organiser and strong. Bit of an old cunt obviously, but I don't think that'd go amiss in our team. Perhaps even make him captain to ease the pressure on the others.

I thought he was using "adversarial" as a description of the journalism currently adopted by the mainstream, as in a criticism. Could be wrang, I'll give it another read the morn when I'm more with it.

Execution? Yass, that's the spirit min. Here's an article for ye. Good read. http://www.leninology.co.uk/2016/05/laura-kuenssberg.html

Apparently only a move was made, not agreed. Liverpool have signed some other 'keeper today (I think today) which means the loan is now definitely happening, but no confirmation of the location, with Ward favouring the dons according to rumour.

Daily hun suggesting Ward might return for next season. That'd be fucking awesome.

Ah well, happy to be proved wrong! I thought he was pish, but then I don't see him every week. Very similar to Church I thought, but perhaps marginally quicker, but a decent return and good backup. Can't see a future for Shankland now, he will surely be gone. As ED says, good that we're going about our business in a quiet, efficient manner. Hope to fuck we're getting a keeper though, Rogers doesn't look good enough and Lennox certainly isn't good enough to provide him competition. I'm not sure what the deal is with re-signing Lennox, I'm hoping that it's an uber-precaution in case we don't get our preferred number one choice in time for Europe or the start of the season (McGovern would be at Euros for example).

I think he's pish. Reminds me of Dougie Imrie. A skill-less battering ram. He's Darren Mackie. Although I've only seen him 3-4 times....

Aye, you're right, it was a big part though, Ward's confidence made it much easier on his back line. Brown was correctly identified as not being good enough and all I was suggesting was that was known for 6 months before the season began and should have been addressed. For us to lose Ward on the back of an administrative error, as it seems to be, was galling. The problem we have now is that not only do we have a good 'keeper to source and pay for, we also have to get at least one centre half, a midfielder, a wide player and another striker just to compete at the same level as we have been over the last couple of seasons. That's five players in one window. We're relying on a good strike rate on our signings, which hasn't been apparent in the last season, with only 2-3 out of 8 being good enough to be a first team starter.

That was a huge fuck up like. One I hope we've learned from. I was really concerned when we got Ward in on loan, because we'd had at least 6 months knowing that both Brown and Langfield were not good enough for number one. Unlike in prior years, we'd sorted ourselves out in every other area. Goalkeeper was the one position we had left to fill with a good starter, every other position had a first choice that was good enough to win the majority of games. Yet, we hadn't managed to scout one good goalie available for purchase that would be good enough and we were resorting to what seemed to be a risky, unscouted, loan (I'm going by the other loans we've made, where it's very much hit or miss, luck-based). That it wasn't made clear that it was imperative that Ward remained for the entire season suggests a blase attitude to the situation whereby Brown was actually seen as adequate if Ward turned out to be pish. I can accept the lack of alternatives in January, our coaching and scouting team weren't expecting to have to move quickly on a signing. We're in the same situation this season, as last, now. We've had 6 months to scout a new goalkeeper and we should have multiple options on the table. It's priority number one and should be wrapped up in days. We have a good backup in Rogers it seems, so that position should be sorted quickly. The problem is that we're now deficient in several other areas of the pitch as we let things slide in the last year. We're effectively 1-2 windows behind where we should be. We shouldn't have needed to waste our scouting resource on looking for a 'keeper in this window and the longer it takes the less time devoted to looking at other positions. McInnes needs to move quickly and decisively on 3 more signings, leaving us the remainder of the window to assess at least 2 others. To have only one signing from this season (Shinnie, and he was pre-contract, which makes it worse) making it into next season is an absolute failure and it shouldn't be underestimated how much that - and especially the keeper situation - will negatively affect us next season.

Hope Collin and Lennox just fuck off quietly. Highland league standard at best.

It's an obvious sign that we don't have the depth of squad to cope with such a long season, which was obvious last season and the season before. The players looked dead on their feet and devoid of ideas. The players that came in had been given so little game time that they couldn't get up to speed quick enough (thought Smith was okay when he came on). We had such a poor window last summer, which set us up for this end of season, it was inevitable. The fact that we didn't get one long term acquisition in January means that we'll need to go for about 6 additions in order to get 4 that are good enough (think that'd be a reasonable return). Not sure that's likely.

Cheers, you are indeed correct, I meant company (or bottom line) not shareholders, I'm not sure why I wrote that. Although strictly speaking, that's pish too. Must be going nuts in my young age! I won't let the shareholders of my company know I wrote that nonsense.

Aye, I didn't mention the goalie as I was still traumatised from watching the worst 'keeper I've ever seen play for the dons last night.

Would be no bad thing I don't think. If we could even offer Shankland as part of the deal that'd be great. I see Stewart as more competition for Hayes and McGinn, which would be perfect. He's this years Shinnie/McLean: the best from the rest. It's good to see us re-investing in proven SPL players. Last night showed how much we need a good centre half and a good central midfielder too, which I'd prefer us to spend money on before Stewart.

By law, his responsibility is to the shareholders, that's what I was getting at. I don't believe Milne looks much further than this, treating AFC like he would any other business. I don't think you should do that with a football club, but I'm happy to watch the game every week as I enjoy it and am aware of how our club works and how Scottish fitba is fixed. I get pissed off with it sometimes, but try not to let it bother me.

Yep I saw some good arguments. But they just presented a series of obstacles, problems to be worked around, rather than a feasibility study, which is the least I'd expect from the club (as opposed to forum posters). The club, as far as I'm aware haven't produced anything like that. As I say, I'm comfortable with it, Milne has a responsibility to the largest shareholders, not the fans.

I have looked at what posters have written, but I've seen nothing from the club to confirm what they say (basically, it's speculation) and nothing that appears to have been investigated in any detail. If there were issues, then the club would have published that by now to put an end to any questions. My point stands, we have a site and we have £25+M it seems to develop it. An honest - without agenda - stadium project would have presented these options to the fans years ago. Put another way, a fan-owned club would have presented all options. We're not a fan-owned club, and Milne's chairmanship is not a passive one. I'm not for one second suggesting that Westhill is not the best option (it's a damn site better than the foggy dump), but I think that a proper community club, with the fans at its heart would be treating its fans like adults and allowing them to see, and be involved in, the decision making process. AFC has never treated its fans like this, and never will. I know that though, and am comfortable enough with that. I'm happy just to point it out rather than start a picket outside Pittodrie or anything. In the end, if I'm honest, I probably just don't care enough to do anything more than make a point on here!

Strachan said that he didn't pick any dons or Tims (apart from Mulgrew - I assume for fitness) to allow them to rest so they're fit for Europe. Fair doos. Good that he's included two huns, a hertz and a hibs player on the assumption that they'll get papped out in the first round anyway (if they make it in hibs/huns case).

Nah, think I was spikkin shite, I think the current owner is not indeed Milne. Still not sure who it actually is, but you're right I think it's farm land so they'll get way over the £6K an acre you'd get for farm land for a stadium site. The AWPR will have fucked it for putting a nice hoose on too (not that that'd stop Milne). Transport links will undoubtedly be a massive factor, and putting on buses won't sort that out, ever. It simply isn't walkable from the city, which is a huge factor. It won't be from day one, but after 5-6 years - basically, the first time the team hits a poor run of form - the crowds will sink. Out of site, out of mind springs to mind, it's difficult to put a price on seeing fans walking through a city centre on the way to a game in terms of making a club belong to a city, but I'd say it's a significant form of advertising at least. It'll be like a large McDiarmid park. We don't need a city centre location to magically appear, we own one. As far as I'm concerned, we still haven't had an adequate explanation - or any explanation - as to why Pittodrie can't be done up. We're going to get about £12M for the sale of Pittodrie, £15M if we're generous. That leaves £25-28M of funding to find. The only question we should be asking is whether or not a new stadium not in Aberdeen is better than a Pittodrie with £25-28M upgrading funds spent on it. That is the only relevant question here. As far as I'm aware there is no special funding mechanism only available to new stadia. Naming rights can be as easily sold on a re-vamped Pittodrie as a new stadium, a mortgage can just as easily be obtained on the existing stadium as on a new build. If the club gave a shite about its fans they'd put a study side by side which showed an enhanced Pittodrie alongside the new stadium and let the fans decide. There is nothing special about a new stadium, and if the directors were being honest with the fans they'd undertake this study.