Dunty

I remember reading this. He said he'd been told the deal was for Kings Links. From memory the council were willing to help relocate the golf driving range and let Aberdeen build there. But Aberdeen have already responded to this in the application. As Tom Widdows has alluded to, building on the land would have issues, it's too small to include the training ground, and Aberdeen believe it'll cost them at least £6m more.

You've actually, rather cleverly or by accident, just proved the theory not to believe anything you read on a forum. The actual story was he signed in to the old club afc chat, found that due to some error he was able to post as a club official (who had verified accounts - the Dons being well ahead of twitter), and so he decided to have some fun by posting we'd signed Batistuta. Of course this sent the forum into a frenzy. The club had a sense of humour bypass and banned him.

Except the town of Westhill isn't against it. It's a few hundred nimbys. The ones who would benefit from the facilities have publicly backed it.

Not convinced the numbers will be that different. Yes, probably a bigger percentage of fans live within walking distance of the AECC than Kingsford, but it won't make a huge difference to car use or public transport, because the vast majority won't live within walking distance. Essentially, the argument for AECC over Kingsford is it maybe takes 10 minutes off the journey to get there for some (but might take longer to get out of the place afterwards) and it makes people feel better because on a map it's within the city. Granted, I'll give you that one. The shuttle bus journeys would be shorter. If AECC was the option I would support it. But it's important to note there would still be a need for shuttle buses, and it'd be heavily reliant on them, same as Kingsford. It's not a big improvement on Kingsford, and the point I'm making is I can't see why Kingsford would be rejected but AECC passed. Lets also not forget why the new AECC isn't being built there, because of space restrictions and because the transport links are better at Bucksburn. Aberdeen would have a hard job convincing everyone that a 20,000 capacity stadium there is better than a 4,000 capacity AECC. Apparently so, George Yule says they investigated that site. They say that ACC requires a land receipt from the sale of the land to help pay off the new AECC, essentially meaning the club won't get it cheap so it's a lot more expensive than Kingsford. They also said it doesn't have room for the stadium and training facilities, though if Kingsford is rejected that might not be an issue because the only way they can still build a dual facility in that case will be in Aberdeenshire. They also said permission has already been given anyway to another developer to build there. What I also don't understand, and didn't understand long before Kingsford ever came on the scene. Why were fans so against Loirston but happy for the AECC site? The walk is pretty much the same. Not trying to be cheeky, but I've read that three times and don't understand what you mean.

You think there'll be less cars using the stadium than what currently use the AECC? How many bus routes go past the AECC? I'd suggest the majority of fans will still need a bus into Aberdeen then a bus to AECC for a concert. What I will say about AECC, and I wouldn't be massively against it (that's not the point I'm making), is that buses would reach it quicker than Kingsford. But I just don't see how the overrall picture is a better one than Kingford, and how if Kingsford fails that AECC could be viewed as a possibility. If Kingsford fails, it would be stupidity for the club to spend more money embarking on a plan somewhere that isn't earmarked for a stadium in the LDP or has good transport links. If they lose this, they just have to accept Aberdeen Council are only going to let them build at Pittodrie, Kings Links or Loirston. But, I think Kingsford will get the go ahead. The main concerns are pedestrian safety, and Aberdeen will have to spend a fair bit on footbridges, on bus laybys and on widening paths, decreasing the width of the dual carriageway, and all the other wee things road traffic management have suggested in their report. Other than that - traffic, it's going to be a problem anywhere, and would have been just as bad if not worse at Loirston, which the council passed. There wasn't loads of parking at Loirston which got passed. The shuttles bus idea was flawed at Loirston, passed. The only reason really for any councillor rejecting this will be they believe Aberdeen need to stay in the city centre for economic reasons. I think that's a weak reason and would be astonished if that happened. All true, but it also says in the stadium application that Aberdeenshire council offered the club land for a new stadium at Blackburn, Balmedie and Portlethen. I don't know why their attitude is so anti-Kingsford - maybe because it's not actually in Aberdeenshire?

To build a stadium there, some parking spaces will have to go simply due to space issues. A football stadium is not going to fit on the footprint taken up by the AECC building. Secondly, how many parking spaces are actually there? Is it more than 1300 (the Kingsford number)? Bear in mind Aberdeen were asked to reduce parking spaces, and in the council report released today the use of arnhall has been criticised because it increases car use. They're not suddenly going to be encouraged to go for a site with more parking. In the 2014 AECC development framework, it has comments from locals who have viewed the plans for the area once the AECC moves to Bucksburn. Link is here. http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=64900&sID=2991 - look at the comments. Page 13 Too much traffic, roads can't cope, public transport links need improved, traffic is a nightmare. Page 11 - 24% of 600 respondents said too much traffic. Page 15 - 56% have road traffic concerns. Page 16 destroys all arguments you're making about great transport links. This is for an area about to lose a 4,000 capacity AECC - the locals aren't even being asked about their thoughts on a 20,000 capacity stadium. If Kingsford is rejected, I can't see how Aberdeen could make an argument for the AECC site and suggest whatever got Kingsford rejected wouldn't be a problem at Bridge of Don. Traffic, nightmare. Fans pouring onto main road up to five times the volume they currently do. Noise, light, not on LDP, no sustainable transport plan, heavily reliant on cars. If Kingsford is out, there are four options and only four options. 1) Abandon new stadium, build training facilities, then try and do what they can with Pittodrie. Forget about anything close to a good stadium, it'll be done on a budget far, far less than Kingsford. With the loss of the sale of Pittodrie and maybe the need to knock down flats, it could be well over £20 less to spend on the stadium than Kingsford, in a more difficult footprint. I'd be amazed if the stadium looked anything other than rubbish. It's a horrible thought. The people desperate to stay at Pittodrie should be careful what they wish for. 2) Try and build at Kings Links. Maybe it's doable. But again it'll be more expensive, and the budget will probably be less due to that expense, and I'm not sure we'll be happy with the result. 3) Loirston. I don't see how it can work, even if they abandon a dual facility and just build the stadium, without scaling back some of the other plans for that area. If they can, and they rebuild cove train station, maybe it's okay. It's probably my preference should Kingsford fail but I can't help but feel the time to build there was five years ago. 4) The club move to Aberdeenshire.

But the back roads I've mentioned are in addition to the main roads the site at Kingsford already has. The parkway IS one of the main roads the AECC relies on. The usage is going to be far higher. The parking currently at AECC would not be additional parking though. Within the site Aberdeen are allowed 1,333 spaces (reduced from their initial 1,600), they won't be allowed more than that at AECC even if they have the space for it. So parking, traffic, ability to walk from union street - AECC doesn't offer an improvement on Kingsford.

There's plenty of existing bus routes to Westhill, plus I heard rumours there may be some form of shuttle buses going to the stadium. All the parking you've mentioned is on private land. There is plenty of parking at Westhill and Kingswells, it just happens to also be on private land. "It's close to the city" - what, union street? No-one is going to walk that every game. So after a match fans will either be queuing for buses or heading to cars, the same as Kingsford. I can't see any evidence AECC would make life easier for fans than Kingsford. The parkway is not a dual carriageway, so after an event at the AECC it's gridlocked. It's a nightmare for traffic with just 4,000 people at a gig. The AWPR would help, but a football crowd will be minimum 10,000. You would have three main roads out. I fail to see how that's better by road than Kingsford. It will have roads going east and west of the stadium, a dual carriageway into the city, a road going north just before Kingswells, the bypass going north and south. Add that many will take the road north through Westhill and out onto the Inverurie to Dyce dual carriageway. You can also go through Cults to go south of the city (if the AWPR was too busy) or through Bucksburn. It's very difficult to argue anywhere in Aberdeen is more accessible by road than Kingsford. By public transport, everywhere that is far enough away from union street to be walking distance will struggle to have an excellent transport strategy because the city is so poorly serviced by anything other than buses. Dyce is an exception because it has a railway station. Loirston potentially would have had the same. To be fair to the club, they tried to build at Loirston and many fans were against it. It reads like when you got to this but you realised the AECC site didn't make sense and have covered yourself by pretending you weren't actually serious all along.

I think your plans are interesting, but I'd be dead against rebuilding Pittodrie if it means a reduction in capacity, and anything north of £10m more than Kingsford is costing to build it, which sadly seems to both be the case.

What makes the AECC site better than Kingsford? The only "advantage" I can see is that it's more in the city, which seems to be a big thing to some people. Parking? No better than Kingsford. You'll need to park in residential areas in both (and with the crowds increased up to five times more than a concert crowd, you may find the residents not quite as welcoming). Traffic? Is it much better? Or any better? Could argue it'd be worse. Public transport? Same. You certainly can't walk to it from the city centre. Cost? Going to be a lot more expensive than Kingsford unless the council do us a good deal, which it seems they are unwilling to do.

The bit in bold, I certainly wouldn't. We'd be spending more money on a smaller capacity (and lets be honest, an inferior stadium) to the one at Kingsford simply because of history and people worrying about a shuttle bus. Hearts are spending £12m on a new main stand to increase capacity and to make more money from hospitality. What the last few posts appear to be suggesting though is that we should do the opposite and essentially go to what Hearts had before the new stand - a 17,000 capacity, crammed in, and missing facilities that would otherwise make us money seven days a week. I'm more than happy to leave Pittodrie, but like you I do hope the club come out and explain the 12,000 figure just to put an end to the argument once and for all. Out of interest, have you ever approached the club for an answer? Maybe it's something worth raising with Dons Supporters Together?

Yeh, we've submitted an application for a stadium and training ground at Kingsford. Currently waiting for council approval. How was your trip to the moon?

Of course it's made up. Last night was invite only to a select group who were backing the stadium - I hardly think this chancer got an invite.

But the train doesn't take you anywhere in Aberdeen. If you were talking about Loirston, and the possibility of re-opening Cove station, then you'd have a point.

What choice of transport away from Pittodrie will you not have at Kingsford?

Apparently some event happening tonight called "Aurora" that some people have got an invite for. Derek McInnes, George Yule and Stewart Milne doing speeches to update on stadium progress, and everyone going will get a sneak peak into what the match day experience will be like in the new ground.

The podcast was a good listen.

Headlines in papers today saying Hibs want £5m for McGinn.

I think hoping GMS will be better than Hayes or McGinn is wishful thinking. GMS could be a good player for us, but those two were tremendous for us and we actually took them for granted a wee bit. Christie and Stewart should be very good this season. Shame they're both just loans. Shinnie will have to do more of a defensive job to replace Jack and protect the defence, which means curtailing his attacking instincts, unless we play O'Connor or Arnason in midfield.

CELTIC FC is to close the 'Green Brigade' section of the stadium for the next two matches after serious incidents of unsafe behaviour at the last two competitive matches at Celtic Park. The Club is writing to the 900 season-ticket holders affected to explain the Club’s position and next steps. The decision, which has been taken amid serious safety concerns and after discussion with the police, follows events at the matches against Hearts in May and Linfield on Wednesday night. The safe standing area of the stadium had been working very well until the final game of last season against Hearts, when large numbers of flares were smuggled into and set off under banners within the Green Brigade section. It was an incredibly irresponsible and co-ordinated action which could have had tragic consequences. The Club understands that consideration was given to halting this crucial game because of the thick smoke, which was blowing across the stadium and into other sections of the support and posed a serious safety risk to all those in the stadium. The fire alarm was activated, resulting in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service responding to the stadium. The Safety Advisory Group of Glasgow City Council, which licenses Celtic Park and comprises representatives from the Council, police, fire and rescue, the ambulance service and other statutory authorities, had an emergency meeting after that game and communicated their serious concerns to the Club, which presented a risk to the renewal of the safety certificate necessary for the operation of the stadium and the capacity of the safe standing area. The Club has been working with the Safety Advisory Group towards a solution for this season, but the events at the match on Wednesday night, where there were further serious safety issues within the Green Brigade section, require the Club to take immediate action to comply with its responsibilities under the applicable legislation. Safety of all supporters at Celtic Park is of paramount importance to the Club. The safe operation of the safe standing area at Celtic Park requires effective communication and engagement with the supporters in that area. Unfortunately, due to the events at the Hearts and Linfield matches, the Club is not satisfied that the Green Brigade section can be operated safely at this time. The Club will continue to investigate the events at the matches in question and to address the issues that arose. The Club will seek to engage with the supporters in the Green Brigade section to re-establish the necessary communication and engagement to permit supporters to be readmitted to the section and for it to be operated safely, in consultation with the Safety Advisory Group. If that cannot be achieved, then the Club will require to examine other options. Club Chief Executive Peter Lawwell said: “The behaviour of fans in the Green Brigade section of the ground at the matches against Hearts and Linfield was a serious safety risk, which has left us with no choice but to take decisive action to ensure safety within the stadium. “There is no room for debate. The safety authorities and the football authorities make the rules. They also enforce the rules. If the rules are broken, Celtic will be punished again and again. There is no hiding place from these realities. Anyone who has Celtic’s interests at heart must surely recognise them and behave accordingly. “Every club which visits here says the atmosphere is incredible and that is something that we have worked very hard to support and encourage. We cannot understand why supporters who are capable of contributing so much that is positive to the club can be so reckless in doing it damage. In addition to the serious safety concerns, we face further UEFA disciplinary action. “This is not a decision we have taken lightly, but the behaviour of fans in this section is posing a direct risk to the safe operation of the stadium and is also seriously tarnishing the club’s hard-won reputation. “Dialogue, engagement and communication with the Green Brigade have evidently failed at this time, given the behaviour experienced at these matches, and we are therefore left with no choice but to take action to ensure safety at the stadium. “We hope that the action we are taking prompts recognition by those fans of the damage being done to the Club and that we can resume meaningful engagement with them which would ensure a safe environment within that part of Celtic Park.” Celtic manager Brendan Rodgers said: “It’s really disappointing that we are talking about stadium safety and paramilitary banners rather than our progress into the next round of Europe. “The fans have a responsibility to behave in the stadium and I would urge everyone involved to see the damage this is causing to the club. Hopefully this is a wake-up call. “The players thrive on the cauldron that the fans create at Celtic Park but there are clearly boundaries that you can’t step over. Everyone knows that pyrotechnics, unacceptable banners and ignoring stewards who are enforcing basic stadium safety measures are simply not on. I really hope that the fans take this on board. It would be a real shame if they forced the club to take more permanent action to ensure safety and protect the Club’s standing in European football, which is what we should all be aiming to promote.”

What would constitute success in your eyes then, because numbers wise it's bigger than Motherwell's (and they've been in the lower division for three years) and as far as creating an atmosphere it's well ahead of Rangers, Motherwell and everyone else bar arguably Celtic who have the advantage of bigger numbers and a standing section. The fact they've done all this without the controversy of the Green Brigade, they're actually the perfect example of how to create a lively singing section, introduce new songs into the support, improve the atmosphere and not piss of your own fans. To my mind that makes them the most successful one, and now they're promoted they'll only get bigger and better.

You're saying big crowds don't matter to players? What tripe. It's already been deemed a success You're having a nightmare here. In the new stadium.

No it's not officially 12,500, it's "we've now passed the 12,000" mark. Aberdeen are pushing for 11,000 sales, as we're not that far behind them. Two big factors in Hibs sales. Easter Road and is a far better stadium. And the season ticket prices are much cheaper than Aberdeen's.

Don't know where you get the 14,700 figure from. Hibs announced three days ago they had just passed the 12,000 mark.

Safe standing - Tom Widdows would be better placed to answer this than me, but I wouldn't think the South and Merkland could accommodate the rail seating unless major upgrades were made to the stands themselves. So the only place to realistically put it would be in the RDU (can't see them moving those in the RDL). But, if the club do that, then fans would leave the south stand to go there, and actually taking fans further away from the pitch, and not necessarily improving the atmosphere. So I don't see the club considering it, especially when they plan to leave the stadium in three years. You're spot on though about the club setting the singing section up to fail last season. The stand should have been split 50/50, with at the very least 2 sections given to the singing section. That way those who wanted to wave flags for 90 minutes could have still had their section in the corner, but others could have taken up the section next to them and helped increase the noise levels. Instead, they gave them just that corner, no non-ultra is going to go and stand behind a massive flag for 90 minutes so the section never grew. They were cut off from the rest of the support because the bottom of the Y is generally empty and to the other side of them they had the big tarpaulin flag and kids. It was a ridiculous idea from the club, but I'm also surprised those pushing for the section didn't foresee the problems. I guess they were so desperate to get the Merkland they thought it was worth a shot. Both sides deserve criticism for their stupidity. Compare it to how Hibs have handled the Hibs ultra group "since 1875", who are moving from the East Stand to the upper deck behind the goal (odd move as thought they had a good thing going on where they were, but appears it is them that asked to move). They say they've gone from 35 season tickets for their section last season, to over 200 for next season. From the Hibs website: Hibernian can confirm that Section 25 of the Famous Five Upper Stand will be a designated singing section for the 2017-18 season. The Club have been working with fan group Since 1875 on plans to build on the impressive atmosphere enjoyed at Easter Road this season, and this move will hopefully contribute this in the coming season. In a letter to supporters, which season ticket holders will receive later this week by post or e-mail. Chief Executive Leeann Dempster outlined the plans. She said: "One of my important aims for next season is to improve match-day atmosphere. It is important for supporters, but it is equally important for the players and the management team. You may have heard Neil speak about this before - both he and the players tell us that when Easter Road is noisy, when the fans are singing and supporting the team that it help push them on and lifts them. "We have undertaken some smaller projects to achieve this, but we want to make a bigger impact now. We have been in discussions with the fan group ‘Since 1875’ - they have been active in Section 43 of the East Stand since the redevelopment of the stadium and have been behind some of the prominent fan displays like the inspired ‘Time for Heroes’ banner at Hampden. "One thing that we have spoken to them about is to identify an area in the stadium that can be dedicated to a traditional ‘singing section’. Other clubs have taken this route both at home here in Scotland and abroad and it is recognised to have improved atmosphere, so we have decided that it is project that we want to deliver for the long-term benefit of the club, the team and the supporters at Easter Road. "This will mean that some supporters currently in the East will move across to Section 25 of the Famous Five Upper and start to build a new ‘singing section’ where supporters who are interested in being involved can participate." If you are interested in being part of this, and relocating to section 25 in the Famous Five Upper, please download the application from our campaign website www.bornahibee.com and return it by 23rd March via email to FamousFive@hibernianfc.co.uk.