Aberdeen hit out at SPFL over kick-off time for televised clash against Kilmarnock

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I actually agree that Aberdeen have a valid complaint. But I strongly suspect that if we supported their complaint and the games were switched which allows them to attend the game.... that is where the conciliation would end. You can almost guarantee that the next time we had a similar instance against us that Aberdeen would be one of the first to cry wolf and demand that original scheduling be maintained.

 

The SFA still can't get Petrie up on a "bringing the game into disrepute" charge for his "exuberance" nonsense at the Cup Final (when what the Hibs fans (as well as some of ours) did was actually illegal and also in contravention of the very laws that Petrie is supposedly a guardian of). And the SFA couldn't pin ANYTHING on Hibs for the treatment of our players at the Cup Final. Players were ASSAULTED and yet nothing, not one thing has happened to the Club involved. And yet we want to continue to extend olive branches ?

 

 

Well, if we supported them this time and they didn't reciprocate in future, then we could say we tried to build bridges and it didn't work.

 

I just had a Christmas lunch for the owners in my office building who have been at loggerheads for years over issues such as car parking, common repairs etc; now everyone is on the same page.

 

Petrie and the Cup Final has nothing whatsoever to do with Aberdeen.

 

I don't agree that supporting a valid complaint is a sign of weakness; on the contrary it would strengthen our position in any similar situations in the future.

Edited December 24, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[Scott7 6,168]

What we have to learn is to work constantly to strengthen our position. Tims did it for years and now they reap rich rewards. They can do what they like.

 

Putting in a word for Aberdeen in this situation does us no harm. As has been pointed out we could be in their position at some time in the future and we would have established a precedent.

 

I'm all for fighting battles where you can crush the opposition at little cost to yourself but never stop shoring up your defences.

[SteveC 150]

Yes we will have to agree to disagree. I am sure you are in the vast majority; but I just don't think it's a productive attitude.

 

 

It isn't, you are right there. However, it is beyond me, after what has been done to us, to be anything other than resentful and filled with hatred. It may be wrong, and is assuredly unhealthy, as well being unproductive, but it is how I feel with every fibre of my being.

 

That does not stop me from saying that I agree with you here: "I don't agree that supporting a valid complaint is a sign of weakness; on the contrary it would strengthen our position in any similar situations in the future."

Edited December 25, 2016 by SteveC

[JFK-1 1,693]

What we have to learn is to work constantly to strengthen our position. Tims did it for years and now they reap rich rewards. They can do what they like.

 

Putting in a word for Aberdeen in this situation does us no harm. As has been pointed out we could be in their position at some time in the future and we would have established a precedent.

 

I'm all for fighting battles where you can crush the opposition at little cost to yourself but never stop shoring up your defences.

 

I don't have any issues as such with the club supporting their whining publicly for PR purposes if there were to be any PR gain from doing so. But I don't think we can ever be in their position in the same way as they are viewing it.

 

They're painting it in part as a bad thing for the home team who may be losing some money due to sheep supporters not being there while it's likely a greater priority for them is to have as much as possible of a support backing them in an away match. But that will never be an issue for Rangers.

 

How many sheep fans who would go to a match are there likely to be outside Aberdeen itself? Probably almost negligible while Rangers on the other hand could easily take up a full away allocation just about anywhere in Britain with a significant portion of that allocation going to people who are relatively local if need be. The sheep could never do that.

 

And again at the end of the day when TV is calling the shots they're always going to be playing second fiddle to Rangers no matter who says what. They're surely aware of that.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't have any issues as such with the club supporting their whining publicly for PR purposes if there were to be any PR gain from doing so.........a greater priority for them is to have as much as possible of a support backing them in an away match.

 

I don't believe this is a PR exercise, it's a genuine and valid complaint, as most on here recognise.

 

Can you please explain to me and anyone else who is still listening, precisely what is wrong with any club wanting to have as big as possible a travelling support as they can and why it is an issue if most of a team's fans come from their home town or city?

 

Whilst not in the slightest denigrating Rangers fans who travel the length and breadth to follow the team; do you not understand that Scottish football would be immensely stronger and far more competitive if even half the teams in the SPFL outside the old firm, could fill half their stadia with home fans.

Edited December 28, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[Scott7 6,168]

Good point BH.

 

Wolves had 28,000 and Derby 30,000. These clubs play in cities half the size of Edinburgh and slightly larger than Aberdeen but could you imagine Hearts, Hibs or Dons getting crowds that size, except against Rangers, even if the grounds were big enough?

 

The old stadium records are interesting. Pittodrie, Dens, Tynecastle 40,000 and Easter Road 60,000. I've been at Easter Road with 40,000 +. Where did they put the other 20,000 on record day. Gates closed at 12.00 for a 2pm kick-off.

 

Why can Scotsmen not turn out to support their local team? Fair enough the hypnotic magic of Rangers snares many of us but there should still be enough left over. Those who absent themselves are the opposite of glory hunters. Despair dodgers I would call them.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I don't believe this is a PR exercise, it's a genuine and valid complaint, as most on here recognise.

 

Can you please explain to me and anyone else who is still listening, precisely what is wrong with any club wanting to have as big as possible a travelling support as they can and why it is an issue if most of a team's fans come from their home town or city?

 

Whilst not in the slightest denigrating Rangers fans who travel the length and breadth to follow the team; do you not understand that Scottish football would be immensely stronger and far more competitive if even half the teams in the SPFL outside the old firm, could fill half their stadia with home fans.

 

Can you please explain to me and anyone else who is still listening what makes you think I made any comment denigrating a desire to have as large a support as possible at an away match?

 

They're painting it in part as a bad thing for the home team who may be losing some money due to sheep supporters not being there while it's likely a greater priority for them is to have as much as possible of a support backing them in an away match.

 

What in that suggests any denigration of a side wanting to have as much of an away support as possible?

 

And what in this suggests any denigrations of any traveling support from anywhere at all?

 

How many sheep fans who would go to a match are there likely to be outside Aberdeen itself? Probably almost negligible while Rangers on the other hand could easily take up a full away allocation just about anywhere in Britain with a significant portion of that allocation going to people who are relatively local if need be. The sheep could never do that.

 

I'm bamboozled as to where the interpretation you appear to be drawing from it comes from.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Can you please explain to me and anyone else who is still listening what makes you think I made any comment denigrating a desire to have as large a support as possible at an away match?

 

What in that suggests any denigration of a side wanting to have as much of an away support as possible?

 

And what in this suggests any denigrations of any traveling support from anywhere at all?

 

I'm bamboozled as to where the interpretation you appear to be drawing from it comes from.

 

I'm sorry that I've bamboozled you since that was not my intention.

 

However, your comments

They're painting it in part as a bad thing for the home team who may be losing some money due to sheep supporters not being there while it's likely a greater priority for them is to have as much as possible of a support backing them in an away match. ......

How many sheep fans who would go to a match are there likely to be outside Aberdeen itself? Probably almost negligible while Rangers on the other hand could easily take up a full away allocation just about anywhere in Britain with a significant portion of that allocation going to people who are relatively local if need be. The sheep could never do that.

 

clearly suggest three things:

 

1) there is something inherently wrong with Aberdeen wanting to have as many travelling fans at a match as possible to support their team; and

 

2) there is an issue with the fact that most Aberdeen fans come from Aberdeen; and

 

3) there is an issue because Rangers have more fans than Aberdeen and a significant number of Rangers fans are not from Glasgow.

 

Once again you fail to address the real issue here; which is that because of the unreasonable demands of TV many Aberdeen fans who would wish to travel by train will not be able to attend this match; whereas if the times were reversed our fans would not be so inconvenienced getting to Dundee.

 

In your state of bamboozlement you also miss the more important point that Scottish football suffers greatly from a lack of competition, which affects attendances and which would be significantly enhanced if the capacity utilisation of stadia could be increased and there was a more even distribution of commercial finance.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I'm sorry that I've bamboozled you since that was not my intention.

 

However, your comments clearly suggest three things:

 

1) there is something inherently wrong with Aberdeen wanting to have as many travelling fans at a match as possible to support their team; and

 

2) there is an issue with the fact that most Aberdeen fans come from Aberdeen; and

 

3) there is an issue because Rangers have more fans than Aberdeen and a significant number of Rangers fans are not from Glasgow.

 

Once again you fail to address the real issue here; which is that because of the unreasonable demands of TV many Aberdeen fans who would wish to travel by train will not be able to attend this match; whereas if the times were reversed our fans would not be so inconvenienced getting to Dundee.

 

In your state of bamboozlement you also miss the more important point that Scottish football suffers greatly from a lack of competition, which affects attendances and which would be significantly enhanced if the capacity utilisation of stadia could be increased and there was a more even distribution of commercial finance.

 

You're wrong on every point and if that's what it clearly suggested to you than you and I must have vastly differing thought processes.

 

1) There is nothing inherently wrong with Aberdeen wanting to have as many traveling fans as possible and I didn't say there was. So i'm correcting your misinterpretation.

 

2) There is no issue with the fact that most Aberdeen fans come from Aberdeen and again I didn't say there was. I simply stated that they did and that Rangers had fans all over. Isn't that accurate? So again you're corrected.

 

3) I don't even know what you're talking about now. Where in the world did you get that from? And again corrected. I have no issue at all with anybody coming from anywhere and didn't say I did.

 

And as for not addressing any issue that Aberdeen have with the desires of TV I don't care enough about the problems of Aberdeen to be bothered. And my bamboozlement had absolutely nothing to do with the share of the pie in Scottish football. I found your misinterpretation of what I said bamboozling and i'm now bamboozled you didn't get that either.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You're wrong on every point and if that's what it clearly suggested to you than you and I must have vastly differing thought processes.

 

1) There is nothing inherently wrong with Aberdeen wanting to have as many traveling fans as possible and I didn't say there was. So i'm correcting your misinterpretation.

 

2) There is no issue with the fact that most Aberdeen fans come from Aberdeen and again I didn't say there was. I simply stated that they did and that Rangers had fans all over. Isn't that accurate? So again you're corrected.

 

3) I don't even know what you're talking about now. Where in the world did you get that from? And again corrected. I have no issue at all with anybody coming from anywhere and didn't say I did.

 

And as for not addressing any issue that Aberdeen have with the desires of TV I don't care enough about the problems of Aberdeen to be bothered. And my bamboozlement had absolutely nothing to do with the share of the pie in Scottish football. I found your misinterpretation of what I said bamboozling and i'm now bamboozled you didn't get that either.

 

I appreciate all your corrections and I'm sorry that I have added to your bamboozlement.

 

It's disappointing that you have no desire to address the real issues here. We are football fans just like Aberdeen fans and should be concerned about their legitimate complaint because (a) we might be in the same boat at some point in the future and (b) it affects the attendance at the match which in turn affects the competitiveness of the home team.

 

Do you not agree that Scottish football is uncompetitive and do you not agree that it would be more competitive if stadia were better utilised and the available monies were more evenly divided?

 

With that I bid you adieu, to sleep per chance to dream of full stadia and future success in Europe.