RicoS321

The good thing about the Sixt adverts is that there are three of them. Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA5vMRRJWyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlyuyZhsY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2NxRqf1Nlk I don't find them particularly offensive I have to admit. Just annoying. I tend to find the only people I hate in a national sense are those that I haven't actually met. So it's generally my own ignorance. Folks that are the stereotype of any nation are probably all cunts, because stereotyping in itself is usually used to present the worse traits of a nation (grippy Scots, arrogant English, mental Yanks etc). The vast majority of folk don't conform to it. That's why I don't believe the UK should carry nuclear weapons; because our enemies are nae actually our enemies. If you travelled to Russia, for example, you wouldn't meet an entire nation desperate to involve themselves in a war with the yanks. But that's how the Russians are portrayed. You get the idea..

3 at the back definitely has its uses. We beat the tims a couple of seasons ago with Quinn added to the back four. It worked perfectly. It just isn't required against Hertz. To me, it should only have been used with Logan as wing back though, and Shinnie rather than Wright. Wright doesn't have the engine of someone like Hayes, and it's unfair to ask him to play that role and then hook him when it's not going well. Although, it won't do him any harm either to teach him the hard-working aspect of the game that made Hayes such a good professional. To me, 3 at the back is for games where we have defend, rather than as a weird way of shoe-horning two strikers in (I agree with you, 4-4-2 was the only option there). KFP, I wasn't really having a go at Maynard there (I was..), I was more commenting on not changing the formation. Maynard wasn't the guy to bring on for Rooney, a change in setup was required as Stewart pointed out several times (I agree with you Rocket, Stewart is very good). That doesn't do Maynard any good either as you say.

Ach, to be fair, Murrayfield is always a difficult place to go and get points. Anyway, the radio was saying we were playing 3 at the back with Ball sitting in front? How the fuck did that work? Back 3 of Logan, O'Connor and Considine. Nae wonder Considine and Logan struggled. Was it: ------------------Lewis----------------- -----Logan----OConnor----Consi------ -------------------Ball------------------- Christie---McLean---Shinnie---Wright ------------Rooney----May------------- Jebus, nae wonder we struggled. Stewart was saying on the radio that he couldn't believe that we didn't switch formation when we made the changes. We clearly had the personnel to revert to a back four and get some width that wasn't required to track back as wing backs all day. But we made a like for like switch (if Maynard is like for like with anything). Lucky we didn't lose. Nevermind though, hopefully he'll learn.

It is weird isn't it? Loirston was at least in the city, demonstrably so. Was it just bad timing? Would it have got more support if the AWPR had been well into construction? The transport plan - albeit still fairly shite - was ten times better than Kingsford. It was just about walkable from the station (3.4 miles uphill is a bit of a trek like, but fine on the way home) with the obvious option of opening a new station in the future. The additional journey time over Kingsford for those from the North with the AWPR would be about 10 minutes max. I didn't like Loirston, but I just don't get the clamour for Kingsford at all, it's clearly an inferior location.

To be fair, Bellfield was also attached to a Euros bid wasn't it? When that got shelved, unsurprisingly, it was quietly slipped into the background as the government wouldn't fund it and there was no chance of the dons affording it. Were they not going to have a stadium that could be conveniently flatpacked up and down from 20-35K as and when required? I remember all sorts of stories in the rag in those days.

So really, because of the AWPR, Anyone going to any of those locations served by the AWPR will be equally affected whether in Westhill or AECC - i.e. there's fuck all difference for them apart fae maybe 10 minutes extra for those from the South (me). What Slim correctly points out is that it's far better served from the city centre, and the transport plan for AECC would be ten times more workable than Westhill with 16 existing bus routes. Also, I have on more than one occasion walked the 3.1 miles back into town from AECC. It's closer than Loirston, and flatter. Whilst I don't really like the venue (in fact I think the AECC's biggest draw back currently is location) it's just an all round better location than Westhill. It's not even close in terms of transport plan.

Not to mention the death payments from folk falling into the stadium when walking along Pittodrie street.

Exactly. Stop fuckin aboot AFC and get it done.

Ignorant cunt + supermarket = not okay Supermarket + Ignorant cunt = okay If ye ken fit I mean.

Because the sea exists.

No, No. Don't worry about me.

Couple of beers last night Jess?

No. It's fine.

Hampden will be full. It doesn't need Regan to guarantee that. You're basically backing up my point, our first eleven (bar Forrest) stands a chance, but Strachan will revert to type if there any injuries. Chris Martin should have been put down after the Lithuania game. Any argument that he is one of the reasons we still have a chance of qualifying is entirely nullified by his performance against Lithuania where he was almost directly responsible for us not winning by being extremely shite at football. His presence on the pitch was enough to put any sane professional footballer off their game. He's a fucking clogger, who runs like a fairmer chasing a coo in his wellies. If Griffiths is injured and we start that fucker, we're screwed. I wouldn't want him up front for the dons, and every player in that squad should be good enough to play for the dons. He's Stockley with dark hair.

I have a 24hr white bread and noodle bar on the corner of my street.

You're correct. I have legs, so I park appropriately in the correct spaces. Also, I don't go to supermarkets because I'm an ignorant cunt.

They won't persist with Strachan if we don't get through. The writing is on the wall for him. Failure to learn from his previous failings will come back to bite him. He's still doing the same old shite of treating the international team like a club (he even repeats this in his interviews). That's why continuity in playing Forrest (for example) is more important to him than form and ability. It's why Chris Martin came on last night and Hanley too. He fails to grasp that you need a mix of continuity and form players and it'll be what costs him in the end. That team we finished with last night will not win against Slovakia and would struggle against Slovenia. We get any injuries before next month and we're screwed as he'll revert to type. I don't think we're the brand new team that most think we are.

Aye, play like that against Slovakia and we'll get beaten. Need two Lithuania (away....) type performances next month. Easily possible, but the Slovaks didn't look pish against England. Three teams in the mix who all need 6 points now, so should be very interesting. Any draws will mean the 2nd place team from our group probably won't make the playoffs. Even with 20 points we might struggle.

Cheers, got it on sports-stream.net. Pretty decent. Given my internet is slower than Alan Tate anyway.

Anyone got a stream for the scotland game? Cricfree playing buggers with the old viruses

I think so Elgin, that's why I mention targets. I've always said that we'd benefit immensely from someone above the manager (not necessarily being critical of McInnes, who's knowledge seems to have been the sole architect of our current football setup). Not only in terms of continuity, so that when he leaves we're not totally fucked (we all got that feeling - again - when the Sunderland job was on the go, we really have no succession plan), but also in terms of accountability. If we put a plan in place for our youth development above McInnes, then he would be accountable to the director - let's say Craigy Broon for a laugh (I ken...) - for the promotion of youth to the first team. He might not like that, but currently he's failing. The entire cost of the youth team for his tenure is currently manifest in one player (Wright). That is staggering. We're not asking for world beaters here either, but we haven't been able to even offset the cost of a first-teamer with a good solid pro in the guise of a Considine or Jack or whatever. I'm assuming it's costed separately at management reporting level, in which case somebody must have that figure (the cost of our youth setup) sticking out on one of their spreadsheets. If it's something McInnes struggles with, then he should be accountable to someone at the club for that.

Tom didn't provide a 17K seater though. That's what I'm asking. For the sake of my argument, let's add 4K seats to the mainer. How much taller and deeper would it need to be? Then, based on that drawing/dimension, which hooses would need to be bought, and why? I'm afraid you'll have to go further than NZ to escape the responsibility Tom has just given you. Thanks in advance...

If they did that to my car, I'd take a shit in their veg aisle.

I think it's harsh to single out Strachan on that particular one. It seems to be de rigueur for managers these days not to admit to games being "must win". It must be taught at media training school or some shite. It's also one of the list of twenty "standard questions for fitba managers" that commentators irritatingly ask all the time because they're too fucking thick or scared to think of anything more insightful. Everyone takes from the standard list of questions and answers these days in fitba, it's not worth listening to any interview anymore, Strachan just takes longer to answer the same question with the same answer in an attempt to sound more intelligent than he actually is.

I'm assuming Carhandle's illustration was a piss take out of those suggesting re-development of Pittodrie, no? Nobody is calling the profession's name into question. My point was that there are certain companies, within Aberdeen or anywhere else, who you could call upon to make a case for a point you wanted to make. If I went to a company, let's say HFM for example, and said I want to build a case for making a new stadium and I want to show that Pittodrie could only be re-developed to a small capacity. It wouldn't be calling the entire profession's name into question, it would be suggesting that this particular company will put profit over ethics in this case and choose not to question the morality of the request and simply do it (that's not a criticism of the company, but the club). The question I've raised, and Tom's simple drawing (simple for a man of your talents, Tom!) helps illustrate, is: was a company asked to maximise re-development capacity, or minimise it? Were they given the task of trying every single possibility to eek out every single seat and present a list of options and red lines (e.g South Stand must be less then 6metres, we could add 2K capacity to the main stand, but we'd have to re-home/buy out two tenants or get planning agreement to bypass this requirement) that showed where we could get to and why? My opinion is that a company was asked to show that Pittodrie could not be re-developed. Not that a company tried absolutely everything to come up with the maximum re-development capacity and were simply unable to do any more. We've all seen the shite that goes up in Aberdeen - and I'd certainly call Muse developments name into question - with absolutely no public support and defy any number of planning questions (the capitol 6 storey rear end anyone?). We haven't even tested the water. That doesn't seem like the move of a club that's explored all options. Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?