Dunty

You could have just pretended to go like the BBC boy clearly has done.

Odd video. If it's the story of this guy's journey to the cup final, then where is he? Was he even at the game? Is it the story of Aberdeen v Bonnyrigg then what's different from the Sportscene highlights?

When was this?

Well, they weren't on. The Scottish Women's Cup semi-finals aren't until April. Poor journalism from you. BOTH of the Sky Sports Cup semi-finals were live on BBC Alba at the weekend. While I find it odd that Sky haven't shown any live game from a tournament that's literally in their name, I wouldn't say both games being available to watch live on the TV is pathetic coverage. Considering the popularity of the games - a few hundred attended each match as opposed to a few thousand going to Glasgow Clan - I'd say their coverage is very good.

Another Daily Record gem. This happened in the Aberdeen/PAOK game, not tonight for Montenegro.

What's the story with yellow cards, is anyone running the risk of being suspended or was that rule changed as it is in England, where no-one can miss the final unless it's a red card in the semi.

The whole article is a bit weird anyway, but clearly someone who has never been to a Hearts game is telling everyone what you have to do to be a proper Hearts fan. https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/youre-not-really-a-fan-of-hearts-if-you-havent-done-some-of-these-10-things-4336298?page=1

Is he not your mate? Have you taught him nothing? This makes you partly responsible for this gaff.

The Rangers players probably didn't know it was 2-0. They would have been thinking a simple win wins the league. Even if they did know, a win would have at least secured second and a Champions League spot. Poor journalism from you tbh.

Hearts are a club that, in their entire history, have never actually done anything special. They've won a few trophies here and there, yo-yoed between divisions, but have never really shaken Scottish football or made their mark in Europe. They're almost invisible until they do something stupid like hire Romanov, get themselves relegated, or build a stand and forget to order seats for it. Yet, their fans constantly talk about how big they are, the potential they have, how well run they are, and what they're going to do and achieve. But, we all know the next 30 years will be similar to the last 150. Little sprouts of success followed by huge delusions of grandeur, before getting put back in their box again.

It's a spelling mistake. Just like you spelled four football teams wrong in your second paragraph there.

We've beaten Celtic at Parkhead the last two times we've faced them there in the Scottish Cup. Then promptly lost to Queen of the South and St Johnstone in the semis. Stands to reason we'd have beat Celtic and lost the semi.

The upcoming Scotland qualifiers I should have said, and perhaps even June's as well. Would explain why Aberdeen are taking so long and why they're happy to keep Robson in interim charge if it means getting their man.

Barry Robson in charge until after the Scotland qualifiers, then Steve Clarke installed, is the latest rumour.

It's a clumsy way of writing "unearthed a gem". Honestly, who cares?

On the contrary, I'm struggling to see what's confused you.

Any game Mark McGhee managed last season?

Is that from the FrazFletcher guy? He seems to have a bit of the Agent Scotland about him.

And only appears to happen to Scottish games.

The foundations are a big extra cost because it's a lot closer to the sea. It was quoted at £6m extra 10 years ago, so imagine it's probably doubled now. Also, the fact the council want the beach stadium to be a community stadium suggests loads of extra facilities being built into it. It says the stadium will cost £60m, extras (design fees, insurance etc) will bring it up to £74m, and "optimism bias" could make it as much as £92m.

That will likely be because there isn't a big team in Scotland that has moved stadium in the last 20 years.

Had a browse through the Aberdeen council documents. The justification of a 16,000 capacity. Is embarrassing. They begin by arguing new stadiums lead to a 25% increase in attendances. Aberdeen's home league average this season is around 15,300 - and bear in mind we haven't played the Old Firm yet. A 25% increase takes that up to 19,000. Even a conservative estimate of 10% takes it to near 17,000. The club have undermined their own argument. "It'll improve atmosphere / Juventus made their stadium smaller" Dave, 18k fans in a 20k stadium make more noise than 16k. Plus Juventus' old stadium was exorbitantly big - they still built the new ground to double their average attendance. Just admit if you build at the beach the increased costs mean you can't afford bigger for now. Be honest and stop this patronising shite.

It just means that the council want to push ahead with the rest of the development, and are happy for Aberdeen to join them at a later date if/when they get the money. Guess it means it gives Aberdeen more time to consider their options over whether to press ahead with beach stadium or go back to Kingsford.

Dave Cormack claiming on the BBC that joining up with the council on their beachfront plans mean the stadium will cost £80m-£90m, but if they build themselves at Kingsford it's £50m. So council need the club to stay in the city but want them to pay the extra £40m for it?