Edinburghdon

I don't think anyone denied loriston and kings links were identified as possible locations... that's not the question being asked of you. What land has the council "offered" the club? What proof do you have that the club pulled out of talks with partners in training facilities purely because they're intent on moving to kingsford? So far nothing... How about leaving people with actual rational arguments to discuss things rather than blathering pish repeatedly to cover the fact you can't accept facts? That'd be nice. Also, Just because someone's said they'd like you to develop somewhere doesn't automatically mean it's suitable either. Why kings links isn't really suitable has been done to death on this thread already. It's getting tiresome...

Still intent on adding nothing relevant to this then?

Actually they haven't, this has been pointed out to you again and again, still hasn't sunk in from the looks of things though... There have also been plenty rational arguments for and against kingsford too, sadly none from you yet. Anything sensible to add? Or you just going to drone on about sentimentality and the fictional offer of land?

For me it's probably because loriston had been ruled out and there's no site within the city, figure that kingsford ticks as many boxes as possible. Travelling that road every day has probably subconsciously made it into a really short journey too.

Could more people have walked to loriston? Might be forgetting the exact location but it always seemed it was just as bad to walk to? Could be wrong though!

The only reason people aren't taking anything you say seriously is because you constantly post nonsense without anything to back that up, then consistently ignore any post asking for anything to back up your fictional claims. There's numerous people with opposing views that have been able to have a rational discussion about the stadium proposal, so your claim that anyone with a different view are disregarded is unsurprisingly a load of pish. Also there's only been one person make any claims about who you are, the rest seem as if they couldn't care. All your posts like this is blatantly to avoid having to answer the questions on the fictional nonsense you're claiming. And aye, Yule has contributed to the club being better run. Not the sole reason but he's sure as hell improved things.

Aye you're absolutely right... didnt realise that was an old post.

Replacing Jack will both be very tough tasks. Taylor I'll give you (as he's an absolute liability) but Jack & is a key player perfoming very well, he'll certainly be a big miss.

I'm not claiming to know it all in the slightest... I'm just not going to go around spouting made up pish thats all. The club were in talks with unis about sharing training facilities. That's a fact, widely reported. The reasoning for those plans failing was also widely reported (long before Kingsford was proposed) also a fact. You're somehow forming a link inside your own head that the club pulled out of said plans not for any operational reasons, or for the reasons both parites stated, but for the sole reason that they're hell bent on moving to Kingsford. Before kingsford was ever proposed... seen where the flaw in that arguement is yet? To say that the council have "offered" sites is absolute garbage, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions... you've yet to mention what land was "offered" or back that up with any kind of proof.

Totally agree with this, completely believe the severely reduced capacity claims after speaking to folk like manc who have professional experience in such matters but I reckon the only way to make people see its the truth is the club releasing further information on it. That should have happened long before now. I don't think the club has ever claimed that every club needs its own training facility right next to the stadium, you've got to see that it's the most efficient way operationally and financially though. Having the facilities elsewhere although doable would mean a much higher cost when you look at the cost of buying and developing 2 sites. When so many people are talking about the high costs already then you can hardly fault the club for trying everything in their power to minimise the costs. Saying that I fully expect they'll go down the separate site route if there's no other alternative. But aye you're right, it's a dreadful article both from the perspective of the questions and the answers, does nothing to help the plans.

I gave up after your first line. The council hasn't done anything of the sort and the club have tried to make training facilities in partnership with others (the unis etc) and couldn't come to a mutually beneficial agreement. This has been pointed out to you numerous times now. Your complaints against the club would be taken more seriously if they were based on something resembling fact.

Yet you're having a wee moan about people arguing over the stadium on facebook?... Not sure about anyone else on here but I drive the road daily, took me 25 mins to drive to Westhill from my house in the city centre this morning... Sure at peak times it can be busy but it's hardly catastrophic gridlock, traffic for the match wont be hugely different to peak rush hour traffic. The concerns bordering on hysterical on some things.

Agree about Tirney at right back, him playing well there could prove to be a good long term solution to what's been a problem position for us for a while too. Would mean him and Robertson playing as well, theyre both too good not to play so finding a place for them both is good news.

I had the same thing happen to me... Not the best start to the day even without the crushing hangover

It's a conspiracy by someone in favour of the stadium, of course it is...

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/concern-as-address-used-by-fraudsters-to-object-to-stadium-plans/?utm_content=buffer7e0cd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Someone's been submitting objections for people not actually opposing the stadium. Wonder which group that could have been... Tragic

I guess we'll see, Ferrari have struggled in qualifying for the last few years but shown good race pace... maybe qualifying so well will mean they're at least there or thereabouts during the race.

Aye, he looked in a really bad way... sad to see.

So in short, sod all to do with actually wanting to move or buses and all to do with helping speed along the sale of the stadium so they can stay where they are? Nothing like twisting the truth for your own agenda eh?... It'd be lovely to have a train station right beside the stadium right enough... bit of realism is needed though I think. Short of Cove (rumoured new station but even worse location for a stadium than Kingford and significantly changed area since the original Loriston proposal), Dyce (sod all space) and Aberdeen (ditto), where are we going to find land within close proximity to a train station?

Aye I suspect the mercs are still in front, hopefully it's much closer though! Totally agree about Alonso too, shame he's in such an awful car as he's probably still up there with the very quickest. Looks like the Honda engine is still a bag of shite though

Ferrari? Or Mercedes? Ferrari had James Allison heading up the concept design for their new car but he's since joined Mercedes. Not sure about Mercedes... seem to remember they lost a couple of people too. General thought from the BBC/ sky sports reporters are thay Ferrari tend to run light on fuel during testing where Mercedes does the opposite so it may not be as close as it looks... guess we'll find out this weekend though. A return to form for Ferrari would be good (if it means Hamilton doesn't win it's even better)

Really can't wait for the new season to kick off, going on the pre season testing the cars are significantly quicker too Really hope Ferraris good testing form isn't a red herring as having genuine competition this year is a must. Same goes for red bull (although they've not looked as quick...).

What a god awful team. Such a shame as any sane manager would have tired out new players

Oh I know its true, wasnt questioning when it'll be reviewed (just the rest of the nonsense ) I don't think anyone has suggested it'll be approved outright in June, it's commonly accepted that improvements need to be made to certain aspects... that's been repeated over and over again. Good job stating the obvious (and telling people what is already commonly accepted) whilst ignoring any question on your nonsensical ranting posted earlier or any reasonable argument put to you though.

Aye admittedly I'd forgotten about the indoor part to Riccarton, it's been a while No offense but a lot of that is nonsense, unfounded pish. Also, regarding the asbestos at Kingsford... I presume you'll have solid proof of this over and above some rumour coming from the No Kingsford lot? You'll also be aware that cleaning up the likes of Asbestos is a fairly normal occurance in building on such sites and will come with costs. The costs with building on Kings Links has already been touched upon by others who know much more about it than me and I don't see any point in repeating it for you to ignore again... You've failed to mention a single other area of the city that the club could partner the council at. Barring a kings links site that has already been discussed. I'll give you one thing... you've finally said something true