ayrmad Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Suspect Device said: We'll either keep it tight and lose to a dodgy penalty or get utterly skelped because we've let them play their game with no pressure. Or it'll be a draw. Or we'll win. Or the game will be abandoned. Who in all honesty thought Hearts would scud them 4 nil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, ayrmad said: Who in all honesty thought Hearts would scud them 4 nil? Nobody but they will be more up for this game than last week. I thought we'd get beat by Hibs last week so wtf do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Suspect Device said: Nobody but they will be more up for this game than last week. I thought we'd get beat by Hibs last week so wtf do I know? It didn't sound like they were too up for Partick when I was listening. We're maybe underestimating how their subconscious has been tweaked in recent weeks, they've went from walking out looking for wins every week to being a bit glad of a draw against lesser opposition, perhaps it's not as easy as we think to just flick the switch on to winning mode again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree house tam Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Aberdeen to bottle it, as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_14 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Christie with a brace then....? I’m thinking he’ll get all 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Christie will be a costly absence, as he was in the 3-0 reverse at Pittodrie - he's probably second only to Shinnie regarding his impact on how this team plays. In hindsight, and if I remember correctly McInnes admitted this after the game, starting both Rooney and May against Celtic at Pittodrie was a mistake - I don't think he will repeat it, and I'd imagine only May will start. Arnason will most likely come back in, with O'Connor probably being pushed up to holding midfield. I have my concerns about Considine at left-back against better opposition - especially against arguably the most impressive winger in the league so far this season in Forrest - but I'd be very surprised if McInnes doesn't want Shinnie in midfield, and I'd probably agree with that judgment. After seeing what worked so well for Hearts last Sunday, we will require legs from middle to front to maximise our chances of winning, which is why I'd prefer to see Wright starting on the right, with Mackay-Steven on the left and McLean behind May centrally. Having said that, if McInnes makes room for Stewart, I could probably understand the justification for having him in. I always get optimistic just before playing Celtic, and then promise myself not to raise my expectations before the next time we play them. I'll go for 3-1 Celtic, but fully expect to be predicting a Dons win by the time kick-off comes around on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kneetrembler Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said: We're shite against Celtic for 2 reasons. Lack of belief, and because Celtic are never, ever caught by surprise against us....the lazy-arsed cannae be botheredness that bores everyone in their home games against the likes of Killie and St Johnstone, and inevitably leaves them sleepwalking into a 1-1 draw, isn't present when they play a big team like Aberdeen. Spot on. Celtic have a much better football team than us and the Aberdeen players and management think so too. For us to win, they have to play well below their capacity and Aberdeen have to reach the maximum of theirs. As Bob rightly says, a sub par performance is much less likely from Celtic against us than teams lower down the league. Many people call Aberdeen bottle merchants after losses to Celtic, and its unfair. HIbs are a good side and have taken points off Celtic this season. I guess they would be similar in financial terms to Aberdeen. We beat them at Easter Road and tore them to pieces at Pittodrie. No sign of bottle crashes in those games. Celtic's form dipped against HIbs because they do not perceive them to be the threat Aberdeen are. The league table reinforces this view. There are improvements possible in the Aberdeen player's self belief and mind set, however, these are not required in order for the players to meet their potential in big games. They achieved this in the Scottish Cup Final. Its being able to see beyond the gulf in ability and finding the conviction that the team can become more than the sum of it's parts, able to find the perfect performance to overcome a formidable opponent in their own city. I have been unfairly critical of the Aberdeen players mental strength in the past. They don't lack a winning mentality, however, what's required to beat an on form Celtic is something more, a herculean unshakable belief that despite all evidence and opinion being to the contrary, it can be done. I will be there to cheer on the Dandies. This might be our day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 I wouldn't say it was unfair to describe us as bottle merchants in last seasons league cup final. Total lack of any kind of fight or belief we could win. It would be unfair to say the same about the Scottish cup final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, Kneetrembler said: HIbs are a good side and have taken points off Celtic this season. I guess they would be similar in financial terms to Aberdeen. We beat them at Easter Road and tore them to pieces at Pittodrie. No sign of bottle crashes in those games. Celtic's form dipped against HIbs because they do not perceive them to be the threat Aberdeen are. The league table reinforces this view. As good as they were at Parkhead, Hibs only got a point against Celtic a fortnight ago through a combination of Celtic complacency and sheer good luck. On another day Celtic would have won that game 4 or 5 nil. They went 2 up, should have scored another hatful and then were shocked when Hibs sclaffed one in against the run of play. It does show though that Celtic, and especially Celtic's defence, are vulnerable when things don't quite go their way. We should remember that if/when we go a goal down, instead of throwing in the towel like we've done so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Of course television impacts gate revenue. There's plenty of evidence of it, both well researched and empirical. I'm evidence of it. If a game is on TV I'm much less likely to travel through to Perth to watch it, particularly this season, not least because it often switches the game to a stupid time – try getting to, say, Aberdeen for midday on a Sunday from most parts of the country. No-one's claiming it's the only influence, but it's disingenuous to suggest it isn't a factor. And it affects smaller clubs far more, because more of their attendance against the OF is made up from pay at the gate. (The irony is that Rangers and Celtic should be less affected by having their home games televised, because the walk-in support is proportionally much smaller.) Of course Celtic and Rangers will have pressured TV execs to televise away games. They'd be daft not to and their muscle and drawing power makes it possible. And they do it for financial reasons. Getting TV to televise away games maximises the value of their own club's season tickets and keeps their fan base happy. But that doesn't make it fair. Seriously, if you're not disputing the imbalance of the fixture choice, how do you explain why Celtic and Rangers away games are so frequently televised and home games aren't? Luck? I'm sorry but you're wrong. You can't just pluck out an article from a different league in a country with 10 times our population as proof then give yourself as an example and that's it. It may well be the case down south and in other big leagues but it's not the same up here due to many reasons. Almost every live home game teams have up here will be against the OF, one of the other big 3 or a derby match, matches where tv will have no impact on the attendance. Go and check teams average attendances and then check their live tv attendances and you will see for yourself that it generally makes no difference. We also live in a tiny country where the vast majority of teams supports come from their local areas as is quite often highlighted on this forum. Travelling for the majority of fans to their home games isn't an issue like it might be down south. I'm also pretty sure that pay at the gate isn't allowed for most clubs when playing the OF because they don't want away fans infiltrating the home ends, I could be wrong on that but I'm fairly sure most clubs don't allow it and sell tickets in advance. As for why Sky and BT show more away OF games than home is quite simple really, it's due to demand. If they show the home games they lose 50,000 viewers immediately because they will be at the game. It's nothing sinister from the SPFL/SFA/OF. Sky and BT want the games that attract the most viewers so that they can make a profit on their investment in our game through advertisers and sponsors etc.If the OF had as big a say as you think they have then they would just push for the same rules used in England i.e. a chunk of the pie is paid to clubs based on tv appearances. This is why some of the bigger teams down south made a lot more money than Leicester when they won the league. I know you all hate the OF but this is another unsubstantiated myth that doesn't actually exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 I guess they would be similar in financial terms to Aberdeen. Seeing as everyone's wanting to talk about finances again, just thought I'd correct you on this point. Loved the rest of the post though. The financial gap between Rangers and Aberdeen is pretty much the same as the gap between Aberdeen and Hibs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Seeing as everyone's wanting to talk about finances again, just thought I'd correct you on this point. Loved the rest of the post though. The financial gap between Rangers and Aberdeen is pretty much the same as the gap between Aberdeen and Hibs. I just hope members of Aberdeen football club won't be betting on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken es Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Be nice if we could turn up and make a game of it for a change. Free hit nothing to lose Celtic will win league easily,so have a go AFC ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kneetrembler Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 55 minutes ago, Tartantony said: Seeing as everyone's wanting to talk about finances again, just thought I'd correct you on this point. Loved the rest of the post though. The financial gap between Rangers and Aberdeen is pretty much the same as the gap between Aberdeen and Hibs. I am surprised to hear this, but fair do's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kneetrembler Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 31 minutes ago, Romeo said: I just hope members of Aberdeen football club won't be betting on this. Might need a few tips off your lot on keeping the tax bill down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Tartantony said: Seeing as everyone's wanting to talk about finances again, just thought I'd correct you on this point. Loved the rest of the post though. The financial gap between Rangers and Aberdeen is pretty much the same as the gap between Aberdeen and Hibs. Not really. Rangers turnover 2017 was £29.2m Aberdeen's was £13.4m (£15.8m less than Rangers') Hibs was £7.7m (5.7m less than Aberdeen's) Edit: Of course if you are talking in terms of profitability.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Not really. Rangers turnover 2017 was £29.2m Aberdeen's was £13.4m (£15.8m less than Rangers') Hibs was £7.7m (5.7m less than Aberdeen's) Edit: Of course if you are talking in terms of profitability.......... Aberdeens was £15.3m. The gap is pretty much double in each case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Tartantony said: I'm sorry but you're wrong. You can't just pluck out an article from a different league in a country with 10 times our population as proof then give yourself as an example and that's it. It may well be the case down south and in other big leagues but it's not the same up here due to many reasons. Almost every live home game teams have up here will be against the OF, one of the other big 3 or a derby match, matches where tv will have no impact on the attendance. Go and check teams average attendances and then check their live tv attendances and you will see for yourself that it generally makes no difference. We also live in a tiny country where the vast majority of teams supports come from their local areas as is quite often highlighted on this forum. Travelling for the majority of fans to their home games isn't an issue like it might be down south. I'm also pretty sure that pay at the gate isn't allowed for most clubs when playing the OF because they don't want away fans infiltrating the home ends, I could be wrong on that but I'm fairly sure most clubs don't allow it and sell tickets in advance. As for why Sky and BT show more away OF games than home is quite simple really, it's due to demand. If they show the home games they lose 50,000 viewers immediately because they will be at the game. It's nothing sinister from the SPFL/SFA/OF. Sky and BT want the games that attract the most viewers so that they can make a profit on their investment in our game through advertisers and sponsors etc. If the OF had as big a say as you think they have then they would just push for the same rules used in England i.e. a chunk of the pie is paid to clubs based on tv appearances. This is why some of the bigger teams down south made a lot more money than Leicester when they won the league. I know you all hate the OF but this is another unsubstantiated myth that doesn't actually exist. Could you give an example of an unsubstantiated myth that does exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Tartantony said: 5 minutes ago, Suspect Device said: Not really. Rangers turnover 2017 was £29.2m Aberdeen's was £13.4m (£15.8m less than Rangers') Hibs was £7.7m (5.7m less than Aberdeen's) Edit: Of course if you are talking in terms of profitability.......... Aberdeens was £15.3m. The gap is pretty much double in each case. Sorry, I read the 2016 figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Could you give an example of an unsubstantiated myth that does exist? Catholicism? [emoji2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.