️ Come on you Reds! ️
Edinburghdon
-
Posts
3,029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Edinburghdon
-
-
Would be a dreadful move for him, reckon it's the championship or no move if he's got any sense.
-
Absolutely. A joy to watch, although I recall a few people saying he was lazy
If only we'd managed to persuade Heikkenen to stay on for a while long. Those two in the middle were sublime.
Totally agree, loved that midfield partnership.
Not sure it'll all together fair to compare McLean to Seve though, McLean's a different type of player and has always been better in a more advanced no. 10 role. It should be his permanent position for us, reckon he's only asked to play deeper on occasion because we're short on options. Always remembered Seve as a traditional box to box type midfielder, more comparable to jack or shinnies usual role.
-
Agreed. Although I think it's a shame that they didn't decide to try and be trail blazers in the trial. But hey ho, as long as it's still on the table that's all I care, which it is.
I can only imagine it's because the club don't see the point in spending the cash required to do it at pittodrie, which I see the sense in.
-
Interesting
"In February and March the Arsenal Supporters' Trust asked 7,239 people how they felt about the idea of introduction of safe standing at Emirates Stadium.
Not surprisingly, the opinions were overwhelmingly in favour. What may be surprising is the scale. Massive 96% feel there should be such sections at their stadium and only 20% of them would not wish to stand themselves while letting others occupy such sections. Yes, 76% of surveyed Arsenal fans wish to stand during games.
Possibly the most important data commercially is that from fans attending fewer than 10 games per season. Many of them suggest they would likely come more frequently if allowed to stand during games and thus have a better matchday experience."
http://stadiumdb.com/news/2017/04/london_arsenal_supporters_almost_unanimously_for_safe_standing
Thatll be why the club have repeatedly said they'll have one provided the Celtic trial goes well then won't it?
Really not sure where the feeling that the club is against it comes from, they've been quite clear in what they've said st the roadshows and exhibitions etc.
-
The STV q&a was from 2011 and the SPL's rule. The SPFL when formed in 2013 scrapped all requirements. It can be anything that passes H&S.
Seaton hasn't been proposed officially by anyone, the ITKers (not 100%AKers) have said the council 'found' a site by the beach when it became apparent the club were actually going to disappear from the city centre with the benefits it brings to them. Reading between the lines of all the responses from the ACC councillors in their capacity so far, this adds up pretty much exactly. I think it was the economic one that basically called out the club's efforts to stay in and around Pittodrie as bullshit.
Seems the link you provided makes no mention at all about safe standing, don't you think it's telling that every single article since only talks about rail seating? There's no mention at all of anything else being acceptable.
As far as a location at the beach, kings links is in the local plan and discussed already in this thread. As far as the council "finding" a location... where's there any evidence of that being true? Some people saying it doesn't mean it's based on any kind of reality.
-
Where does it say anything about the type of standing? I think that was SPL rules before anyone did it. I first read it from QoS/Morton fans talking about what would happen if they were promoted. There's one set of rules for the SPFL.
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf
There's nothing there apart from pitches so I don't see how it would make any difference what it is. It's not marked down as anything or off limits in the 2017 plan.
Are you genuinely taking the piss? The link I've shown you to twice states what is the accepted type of safe standing.
Must admit I'm doing this on my phone so can't search the link provided but if you read the interview/q&a it clearly states what the accepted safe standing design for the Scottish premiership is.
Seaton not being marked as off limits in the latest local plan doesn't mean that it's been proposed nor does it mean it's suitable or even large enough.
-
I'd have thought in that circumstance it would not be cheaper or perhaps more expensive given it could only hold the capacity of the bus once in a direct trip with not much scope for anything else.
Do you really think a full bus doing done trip is as cost effective as one partially full or half empty bus doing one trip? Or that a bus doing multiple almost full trips as would be the case in a properly planned service wouldn't be more cost effective than one doing a couple of full runs then a couple of basically empty runs as is the case with the current x17? It's blindingly obvious a properly run shuttle could be more cost effective or cheaper than the service buses.
When the SPFL took over in 2013 they removed basically every stadium requirement. Neil Doncaster article in the Herald in February talking about standing where he says Arbroath and Ayr are two of his favourite grounds.
They haven't though have they? The rules on min capacity in the top league has been relaxed I'll give you that, the rules for standing in the top leagues is limited to the rail style seating as previously mentioned. Doesn't matter if Doncaster likes Arbroath or Ayr or not, they'd not be able to have that layout in the league we are in. Makes it a bit of a pointless argument don't you think?
I suspect it's where the council may have said a stadium could go, with all the allusions about Seaton and regeneration and since it's been noted as a potential place for a football academy in previous city plans.
You can suspect all you like, I don't think it's based on anything more than that, if the council had said as much why isn't it mentioned I'm any council plans? Also, a football academy is castle different to a 20k stadium don't you think? Ones ever so slightly bigger than the other...
Yes, and given clubs like St Mirren saying they can't have safe standing because of the architecture and others not being able to have it because it needs the weight spread evenly and not having the correct exits, why are we not planning for that?
Exeter's relatively new terrace...all that anyone needs.
As mentioned previously Aberdeen have said repeatedly that safe standing is an option depending how the trial at Celtic park goes, no part of that suggests the current proposed design couldn't accommodate it. You're making that assumption purely because there's seats there just now despite the club saying there will be a standing area if it's called for and works.
-
The X17 is £5.90 return and almost every bus is completely full including standing from Westhill to Union Square and back in the morning and evening.
Well that's not been my experience any time I've used it but ok let's assume every bus is jam packed during rush hour. Do they only run during rush hour? Nope... the prices will reflect that, propping up the times the buses are basically empty so that the service is even remotely economical. Now if there's a proper shuttle service with a much higher utilisation per bus don't you think they could be much cheaper if the drive is there to do it? I'd have thought that's fairly common sense. Relies on it being done properly though admittedly.
If any club gets promoted now such as Queen of the South they won't have to install anything and this is their terrace where licenses don't seem to be any issue.
It's only UEFA that require seats and there's loads of cheap different ways used across europe.
That's not really true, safe standing is allowed however has to be the rail type seating only from what I can tell, you also need a different type of licence to have a safe standing area if you've already got an all seater stadium. Probably not a huge deal but would still be applied for and accepted by all parties (football authorities and councils)
So yeah QotS could still use their terraces but they'd need to install rail type seating for it to be used in the majority of the competitions they'd be in.
Regardless of how many types of cheap safe standing are used throughout Europe it's only the rail type seating permitted in Scotland. They'd need to be locked open for all European competitions going on the link below. (Note the cost difference too, kind of blows the cheap point out of the water, although I do agree we need a safe standing area.
Beer in German stadiums I've been in is normally pilsener. Labour and the Tories support alcohol at football now and the nanny section of the SNP do not have a majority and some of their MSPs have even campaigned for it. Really bring the issue into focus and it will be done. Give little murmurings when asked by the press and it's not going to change ever. It needs pressure.
It doesn't matter what aberdeen say about booze at football, it'd take a huge change for it to be brought back, one club won't force that issue.
Don't know why it would require the golf course and there seems no problem with the high rises next door.
I'd imagine it's the space available firstly, can't imagine there's enough land feee without using at least some of the golf course, again some of the more clued up posters could confirm but with access/egress, the stadium and space around it required before you even look at any fan facilities outside it seems like a lot to fit in and not much space without the golf course etc. Hardly the "enourmous" space you're making out if we exclude the course anyway.
-
£300k a year to maintain Main Stand.
That is utter pie in the sky garbage.
As for the South Stand - there is not much to maintain apart from seats which get broken regularly by away fans and away teams pays for it anyway.
Aberdeen FC employ an all trades handy man to do work. Its amazing what you can do with paint brush, screwdriver and hammer.
He gets paid mimimum wage.
Maintenance is shown in the accounts if you care to check.
I suspect there's significantly more involved in the maintenance required to maintain a safety certificate too although I'm sure one of the more clued up posters could explain exactly what is involved.
But aye you crack on with your nonsense
-
The belief is that the buses would be free or included with the match ticket or when that falls apart moves to they won't cost £5+. They would if they were being hired and that's what a public bus costs anyway.
The line about the Celtic trial was very odd and to me a clear downplaying of standing or the size of it. There are no rules now about standing or the type required, and the stuff about the councils and safety certificate - there's no brouhaha over it at all at any lower division clubs.
Booze in the stadion - the club tell DST they support it returning and give lines like welcoming looking at the issue when asked by the press. Scotland's 2nd force, along with Celtic calling for it, could have it on the table and done if they wanted to. They did it for rugby 10 years ago. It's not going to change for as long as Aberdeen act like wallflowers.
Has the enormous space next to Seaton towers been found unfeasible?
I've not seen any mass claims about free buses, suspect you're generalising based on a couple of wildly optimistic comments. Basing the costs on existing public transport costs for a route that's very much under used and priced in a way to try and make it economical isn't really representative either. The simple truth is nobody knows what it'll cost until it's properly costed. I'd reckon It stands to reason buses operating closer to capacity can be run at a cheaper price than the current almost empty service but that's just how I see it though.
As far as I'm aware as well a standing area requires a different licence, something which Celtic have for a trial to see how it works. There are also rules on the design of safe standing areas etc too so you're wife of the mark there. I can't see why the club saying they're keen for standing and they'll evaluate further once they see how it works in reality is downplaying anything, you're just twisting things to suit your agenda now. They've said time and time again there will be a safe standing area if it works.
It'll take more than the club supporting it to get booze in the stadium, it'll require police and government support, can you really see it changing any time soon? Also you mentioned beer at German games before, isn't that still very low alcohol (I.e near enough non alcoholic) beer served in Germany? Certainly was last time I was there..which is near enough pointless to be honest.
No idea about seaton, haven't looked into it but suspect it'd have the same drawbacks as kings links and would still require buying the golf course.
-
I'd say every single thread of arguments I've seen on social media has included someone saying how will we get there and the response from the 20 yes supporters who jump on the person's case is the club will be putting on buses.
The other almost universally held belief (from those who support it for this reason) is there will be at least a whole end circa 4,000 or even the length of the pitch or both ends standing with cheaper tickets.
I'd like to know why anyone thinks what is planned is reasonable and what we're aiming for.
The dream in everyone's heads and the base of basically every DST survey spiel response is
Good transport links
Cheaper tickets
Standing
Booze outside the ground and eventually in it
Therefore we must be building a stadium with links to everywhere (the city centre), full of cheap standing tickets to get it filled and with a club boozer and outside terrace. Anything else is simply not right.
Make it easy to get to, make it affordable, make it enjoyable and they will come. This, I don't know what the aim is.
The club have said they will put on buses, That's different to saying they'll be free though. I've not seen a single person claiming they will be either. Maybe I've just not seen it every time it's mentioned, been trying to keep out of this lately as I've had better things to do.
As for standing, the clubs already said there may well be depending on how the Celtic trial goes. To say it's a universally held belief that an entire side or end will be standing is nonsense from what I've seen, maybe I've missed that being mentioned in every arguement too though...
As for the wish list:
The transport links needs work, completely agree there. I don't think it's as bad as some make out though and will be fine in time. Given the lack of suitable alternative in the city centre it's a case of being as good as possible rather than anything perfect.
Standing I've mentioned above.
Cheaper tickets, well it's been the case for years that tickets should be cheaper, same goes for the current stadium. Any new development has to be funded so that there's no increase st the very least.
Booze inside the stadium isn't really in the clubs hands is it? They've included a supporters bar in the plans to help with the booze outside the stadium though.
Saying it needs to be city centre is all well and good but where's the suitable site coming from?! I've yet to see a single site that's not been shown to be unfeasible on here let alone under the scrutiny of any kind of full study.
The basis of ticking a lot off that wish list is there. It just needs to be developed.
Making it easy to get to and affordable is a challenge but it's obviously the aim. Making sure the site whether it's kingsford or Loriston or anywhere gives us proper facilities and ticks as many boxes as possible is what the club seems to be trying to do from what I can see.
-
Who's said they would be free? Nobody from what I can tell... basing the cost on an underused service priced to try and make it profitable isn't really representative is it? Yes it'll cost, using that as a huge negative without having the slightest clue about ho
Me, I say they have to be free.
I believe if you buy a ticket for a German game then public transport is included.
That doesn't mean that they put up the price of a ticket to include transport, just that the transport is free.
Not 100% sure if it's free across the board, it could well be though. l know it's free for the big teams etc. The way it's handled in Germany is fantastic, really hope they try to follow suit. The infrastructure in Germany in general is lightyears ahead of anything in this country.
It doesn't mean it will or even has to be free though, a cheap reliable set up would do for me... surely not a stretch of the imagination.
-
"Pittodrie is falling to bits"
Not it is not.
It is perfectly working conditions, UEFA Category 3 and has all the facilities required as stipulated by UEFA.
It was only a week or so ago you were slating the club for letting the stadium (and pitch) fall into such a serious state of disrepair, now it's not only fine but will be for the foreseeable future.
It may be functional just now, anyone with eyes can see it's not going to remain that way for any significant period of time. I'd have dearly loved to have a modern, suitable stadium that'll last us years and let us progress at pittodrie, that ship seems to have sailed a long time ago though.
Category 3 you say?
Interesting. That means Pittodrie cannot be used for Europa League Group Matches or Champions league playoffs/ group games (Category 4 stadiums only)
I hope you don't expect any kind of fact to be taken on board do you? -
We've got a fully functioning existing stadium. We've got the option of a 12K stadium. We've got the location, we could easily sit tight and see if building materials, techniques and options begin to change (do the architects in the audience genuinely not believe we'll move into a completely new era in building design with additive manufacturing and material science within the next decade or so - i.e. whilst we're still paying off a mortgage?). Pittodrie will easily last ten years or more. Accept that we don't need to go full steam into a project for a new stadium just for the sake of having a new stadium if it's nae in the right place and doesn't make us better off in the long term. Have the balls to say it's not the right move and we're not just going to do it because it's been one man's vision for the last 20 years. In the meantime, go full steam ahead with the training facilities and start churning out the next Willie Millers's and such like.
We've a (barely) fully functional stadium just now I'll give you that, saying it'll easily last 10 years or so more is a bit of a stretch though, the place is falling to bits and will only get worse. Would you really throw good money after bad to try and keep it going in the hope we can miraculously stumble upon a new technique to allow us to build something suitable on the existing site? Would any number of new materials etc address the fundamental lack of space taking the regulations for access/egress into account?
A 12k stadium would be ridiculously small too, surely you can't truly believe it's a viable option if the club hopes to maintain its current level let alone progress?
Agree about the full steam ahead with the training facilities, going on what I've read from those more clued up than I am on these kind of things means I really can't see any alternative but moving the stadium though, regardless of whether it's kingsford or elsewhere. That ship seems to have sailed a long time again sadly.
-
I think losing a city centre location should be an absolute last resort. It currently isn't.
Isn't it? What other viable, affordable options are there?
-
It's being built on debt not ready cash.
Very true... what other option is there to have a suitable long term stadium without a mortgage? Even your daft/impossible rebuild pittodrie pipe dream will involve a mortgage.
Anyone actually think the 'shuttle buses' will be free? NO - you will be screwed for cash.
Who's said they would be free? Nobody from what I can tell... basing the cost on an underused service priced to try and make it profitable isn't really representative is it? Yes it'll cost, using that as a huge negative without having the slightest clue about how much proper shuttles will cost is bordering on hysterical, assuming the worst possible scenario.
The club mentioned it was going to have a 'standing section' like Celtic Park. Look at the plans - not a sign of these.
Lies, lies, lies.
Nothing like twisting the truth... the club have said they'll see how the trial Celtic are carrying out goes before committing, pretty sensible don't you think? Plenty time to tweak it if it's shown to work, the licensing is sorted out and there's the need. Carry on misinterpreting what's said and droning on about lies though
-
How is that going to happen? At this rate it will be £450-500 for a season ticket and match tickets near £30, certainly with paying for the stadium in mind. Add in the extra expense of travel for thousands of city fans or for a parking pass, never mind the fuck about with getting there. It's a tin shed in Westhill in the SPL that will be played in the same drizzle.
I don't see any way it would increase, only drop and very quickly.
One 54 minute wait for a bus to town and not even your home after a game would see to that.
Out of interest, what are those prices based on?...
-
The question is, is this indicative of the long term natural trend of corporate at AFC? Beyond the initial surge created by a new stadium. I suspect it is. I think we get a good return on our corporate facilities for a city our size.
I'd completely agree, I doubt the plan is for any kind of significant increase in numbers, it's the improved efficiency etc that will boost the income.
-
I enjoy a bit of corporate now and again, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not suggesting that we remove corporate. But the statement stinks of a sales pitch for the new stadium, and undermines the normal ticketed supporter. It doesn't discuss a percentage of stadium/seat coverage or any other useful measure, nor does it seem to be backed by evidence (it could be, it just hasn't been provided).
It also ignores the take-up of corporate at Pittodrie. I think anyone that's been would agree that - despite the state of Pittodrie - the RDS corporate is just as good as you'd expect at a new stadium. Yet, I have been offered in recent seasons (even under McInnes) the chance to take up a corporate table that has not been otherwise filled. This suggests there is a saturation point at which corporate is not only not necessary, but a drain on resource and wasted space, much like our general attendances.
I seem to remember from the various exhibitions etc that the quantity of the corporate facilities proposed isn't much more than currently offered however Yule etc made a point of saying it was designed to be much better laid out, I.e all corporate sections can share facilities such as kitchens etc, which isn't the case just now. So the boost to corporate income would be more down to efficiency savings rather than increased numbers.
Agree the corporate offering in the RDS is very good, the main stand wasn't great last time I went with work but hardly awful.
Agree they shouldn't go over the top with corporate facilities to the detriment of the standard tickets although in fairness it doesn't look like they have.
-
Margaret from Westhill
Obviously from Westhill
Mike fae Westhill
Member of NKS
Charlie fae Kingsford
More than one person
a 'Hun'
Not a Dons fan
Nae a Dandy
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
Sorry, to disppoint you. Its one person, not from Westhill, 100% Aberdonian, Dons fan.
Sorry folks.
How many of those have you actually been called? Just out of interest
-
McInnes also quoted as saying Jack has told him the Rangers doesn't interest him.
-
It's a massive race, one of the big three, and McLaren are pish, so he's losing nothing. I imagine McLaren have let him race as an apology.
Seems McLaren have already basically admitted it's a move to appease an unhappy Alonso, rumour has it he'll be allowed to race in Le Mans too, again under the McLaren banner.
-
These threads? What, you mean football ones about the team?
You say they lack any leaders, yet you then pick out a suitable leader who is in the team!!
But we did turn up and did play well. We've lost due to a mad five minute spell. That doesn't take away from the 80 minutes or so when we were the better team.
The worst part about today is that we got beat 3-0, that wasn't a 3-0 game... we played well (although didn't close down enough for the majority of the game) yet threw it away in a mad 10 mins spell.
We were a much better team today, we just didn't show it when it counted.
-
St johnstone game is massive now. Absolute must win.
Someone said jack was arguing with O'Connor just before the goal, anyone know why?
I'm still having trouble come to terms with that result. Still in shock.
Every game is must win, there's no need to single st Johnstone out as anything special though, they're not.
No idea why jack and O'Connor were arguing but the fact O'Connor was hooked before Taylor is staggering.
I hope you don't expect any kind of fact to be taken on board do you? 
Dirthy Filthy Hun Scumbag Vermin (deceased), liquidated & Green abondons ship
in Football Chat
Posted
Seems the Scottish FA have released this:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/280417CL%20current%20status.pdf
How they can award rangers a European licence is beyond me, seems the 3/5 years audited accounts criteria has been ignored. Although it seems the SFA can use their 'discretion' which just passes the decision on to UEFA. Here's hoping they make the right call at least.