RicoS321

That's a fairly unbiased view point.... Just joking. Interesting read. I disagree with the bit in bold. It's not progressive in the slightest (obviously the training ground is). Like any out of town facility (B&Q, Asda, IKEA etc), it's entirely unsustainable and lacks basic connectivity. That's not progressive. Obviously a modern stadium is progress over the existing one, but nobody is arguing otherwise. Also, whether they just turned up in Westhill last year or are long term residents, the fact it was green belt land once is entirely irrelevant. It's an established community of a number of decades that hasn't had to contend with a stadium before. Most of their complaints above, as you say, are utter bollocks but I can understand why folk may feel aggrieved by unexpected building works on their front doorstep. Whether we like it or not, people's entire wealth in 21st century is built into their assets (hooses), and if they feel that something like this could seriously damage that wealth then it must be pretty shite for them. It is green belt land, and so it's right that folk weren't expecting anything to be built there when they purchased their properties. They're also correct that more houses will get built in the surrounding area as a result of the stadium, this devaluing their properties further perhaps. The evidence of that is clear in the Loirston project, which was effectively used as a stalking horse for a thousand hooses after planning was granted (no prizes for guessing who benefited). I don't believe these things are issues, but I can see why folk think they are, and I don't think it's entirely fair to judge people for going to extreme and irrational measures to protect what in many cases will be their greatest store of wealth. But good on ye for attending. I agree with you in the main that their arguments are weak at best, stupid at worst. I don't believe there's anything you've mentioned in there that is of any concern for AFC. I think it'll sail through, and I don't think NKS will get near the funds required to challenge it.

Some fucked up fees going on there. Marvin Johnson was a decent player for Motherwell, but he wisnae even as good as O'Halloran at Saints at the time and certainly couldn't touch Hayes. £3M is fucking nuts and shows the value in including clauses in the contract for pretty much anyone. The market down there is just a different planet and you could get lucky with a player that just fits in down there without causing much of a problem in the SPL. As for McLeod. A bit meh, but it would rile the huns, so'd be worth it from that point of view. Decent player for them, but nothing spectacular. I mind him being an attacking midfielder though, which means we'd be fairly loaded in that role (cover for Christie against the Tims I suppose). If he's free, then why nae, but it strikes me as agent chat to get the guy a move. Think a fullback, left sided defender are probably priorities unless we're moving Shinnie to left back, in which case we need someone in his aggressive mould to replace him. Moult would be good like, but surely with May already signed that'd leave us with a very restless bench with 3 very good strikers vying for one position (and Maynard doing whatever Maynard's do).

Apologies, I was agreeing with you, nae accusing you!

Thank fuck. Good luck loon.

Aye, that's very true. Doesn't mean it's nae worth discussing on a fitba forum though. That'd rule out a lot of topics. Nor does it mean you have to "get behind it", which seems to be the prescription of most.

So was allowing a newly formed Rangers straight back into the top flight. So was allowing the 11-1 vote to be maintained. Why people put so much trust in our board to make the correct decision, I'm unsure.

That's right, forgot about that. Used to them just being pash. Good stuff.

I agree, which is why I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that Tom's design, with little effort, exceeds that of the dons by 1,000. I see absolutely no reason why that couldn't reach 17K with the same effort as was granted to Loirston or Kingsford. I've asked a couple of pertinent questions regarding planning and design. Questions that should have been fielded by the club. @Garlogie they've given a figure of 12K, which is blatantly a lie, with no evidence to back it up. The last thing that it could be called is honest. It's completely lacking in transparency. @Manc I mentioned the wave form for the Mainer, because I suggested it would be curved (inward at the ends) also, that would surely eliminate a lot of seat kills. Depending on where that could start, and given it ends at the RDS, you'd be talking about 1/3rd of the main stand (including RDS corner) being at RDS height. That'd add a fair chunk of seats, similar to that of the upper deck, circa 2K. Again, the main point is that the club have not fielded these questions. They've not provided their drawings, calculations, options, investigations, considerations or configurations for us to analyse make suggestions and ask questions. They didn't approach the renovation of Pittodrie with the attitude of trying to eek out every last seat and maximise the capacity, they produced a document that gave the lowest possible capacity to back up a decision they had already made - to move.

Tom, a few questions regarding yer design. First, to clarify, you're at 13K including the Merkland being raised a couple of rows? In other words, you're already doing better than the dons. I've had issue with the 12K figure the whole time, it stinks of us being lied to and I think your diagram adds to this (sorry)! An honest, open stadium consultation - with drawings - would have prevented this. Something similar to your diagram but with a Q&A section where any other suggestions (like mine below) could be rebutted/answered. The fact that we haven't had this strikes me as more deliberate than incompetent. It's shite that we're having to ask you questions like this on a fitba forum. Can I ask why the corner isn't filled in between the South and RDS? I'm assuming that was deliberate, so interesting to hear your reasoning? I'm guessing emergency access/assembly zone of some sort? In which case, is there alternatives that would allow the stand to overhang any pedestrian area (as the stand gets higher it gets deeper)? Given the South Stand in your diagram doesn't jut out significantly, I would have thought that it would be feasible to corner it appropriately to the same depth as the stand. You mention that we'd have to buy at least 6 houses to move the mainer back. I'm struggling to see which ones, do you think you could point them out? Two at most by the looks of google maps, which I think is up to date for that side of the stand. Again, I'm struggling to see why the golf clubs would necessarily be affected too. We're talking a few metres, not right through the entire car park. To avoid the two houses at the Merkland end, would it not be possible to curve the main stand back into the road returning to meet the RDS corner (see my amazing pic)? Thus creating additional seats with the greater span. Also, why does the main stand (and South) have to be the same height it's entire length? I'm assuming it has to be no higher than existing in order not to block out light from the existing houses? In which case, it can surely rise to the height of the RDS over it's length in a waveform (because we're by the fucking sea!) giving double height, or close to double height from around the centre of the stand (or whatever point suits the light trajectory). Again, this would add further seating. Potentially quite a bit I'd have thought. Finally, in terms of the planning decision. Where does light blockage (stadium height) rank in the list of objections? Compared to say building in the green belt? Both are against the rules, but it seems that those rules are flexible enough that if a good case is put forward, then they can be overcome. Is that a correct statement? Thus, what makes building on the green belt at Kingsford so much easier to get through planning than blocking out light in x number of flats at the site of an existing stadium? Assuming that no compulsory purchases are required - which I agree would be a mountain - then are the two not both capable of de-railing the entire thing through legal challenge? In reality, is there anything "more" insurmountable about renovating Pittodrie than Kingsford from a planning perspective? I expect that if we were actually renovating Pittodrie then the club would be suggesting that any planning issues raised are trivial and that folks "need to get behind it" and those objecting are NIMBYS. In other words, there is parity between the two. Both are difficult to get permission for, but neither particularly more difficult than the other, it just so happens that Kingsford is the one we are trying to promote.

Aye, McLennan reminds me of Shankland a few years back. Bigger than most at his age group and at that stage where he can either kick on and be very good or nae make it. He seems to have a bit more mobility though and I reckon he could turn into a decent player. It's a shame we can't get them at a slightly higher level than either of those two, but at least they're close by and will get regular game time. Noticeable that Harvie hasn't gone out again. Hopefully he'll start to push for a place from the bench.

If it's anything like the last Lithuania game then I think you should just stay in bed, safe in the knowledge that the score will still be the same in the morning. Your dreams should consist of: "Scotland win 4-0 as Strachan and McGhee are hit by bus en route to the game".

I'm wondering why neither have been involved in a WYOWYN.

Is it about consultation? Surely if there are genuine restrictions that apply, the CC don't need to check with the public first? For example, my in-laws wanted to build a turbine on their land, which the community council objected to because it was on green belt (it didn't go to committee or public consultation). I applied for a hoose on the same land but on the site of an existing ruin, and it went to public committee because it didn't contravene green belt planning considerations, but was still in an area where they felt the public should have a say (they didnae gie a fuck so it passed). In other words, the mechanisms and rules are in place that enforced that objection. I'm pretty certain that if the entire community had wanted the turbine to be built, the CC would still be entitled/required to object because it contravenes the green belt planning rules (that would be their default position, unless persuaded otherwise)? Otherwise what's the point in those rules? It's then up to the cooncil to justify why they think said rules should be broken on this occasion. Are we/you saying that any application that is being objected to by CC for breaching a specific rule has to go for public consultation? Genuine questions, I'm unsure how the process works.

Dugdale was the 6th permanent leader, been quite a few "acting" as you'd expect. One every 3 years. Probably about the same as the UK tories. I don't get her shite about how great it is she's leaving without controversy and with a stable party. Unfinished would surely be the only description of that?

Yep. It certainly shows where ACC stand on the situation. I think argument is pretty tenuous like. KCC clearly objected on grounds of green belt land, I'm not sure they would need a public consultation. Fantastic work on the drawings Tom, much appreciated. Will follow up with some questions later....

It's okay, he has no mettle.

Maybe he's just nae as good as everyone thought. A couple of great goals aside he wasn't that reliable when he was here first time around. I actually didn't think he'd be McInnes' type of player so was surprised when he signed. Swans about a lot and holds onto the ball for far too long. However, it could just be that O'Connor's had no reason to be dropped yet? I don't think Arneson is going to cover the left side, nor do I think O'Connor will, so I suspect it's either Arneson and O'Connor and there's been no good reason to hook O'Connor.

Possibly, but I suspect it's more to do with the fact that their skint. They're a few months behind on the building works, and it'll be hitting them hard. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to have a below-par season whilst all their investment is going into developing the ground. I'd expect them to recover next season, but I think they'll just have to limp through this one. Levein is actually the right person to grind out results with a brutal style of football.

Agreed. He hasn't had a great start, but there's signs there if he can just get his shite together on the pitch. Incidents like these can be one-offs that have little or no affect on his future conduct. We've all been there. To be honest, I think it's great. Fitba wid be shite without stories like these. It's funnier when it happens to other teams' players of course, but it's good to laugh at ourselves occasionally too. Significantly happier with this story than those that accompanied the last young Utd superstar that we signed.

Why would going out in Glasgow until the early hours be in breach of club rules? Players are out in Aberdeen reasonably regularly without issue. I doubt it'd be a problem, especially with the international break. However, jumping in a river is an issue, especially when it leads to hypothermia and being rescued. Hopefully there were mitigating circumstances, like he'd just split up with his boyfriend. He's a wee bit glaikit like, so I think we should cut him some slack. Hopefully it'll have given him a kick up the airse and he'll get his head down and concentrate on his fitba. He has the potential to be a good player if he sorts himself out - has a lot to offer the game as soon as he works out how to play it. Hopefully that'll be with us.

I think the reliance on Hayes by Considine is overstating it massively. Most of his defending is done hard up against the winger, which is where he's best. Regardless of Hayes being there or not, if he gives a player a chance to turn and run at him out wide, he'll have difficulty. It'll be interesting to see what we do after the international break. I didn't see too much in the highlights that suggested our centre halves were dodgy at the weekend, with May and McLean losing their men at set-pieces and Shinnie making a woeful pass for the first. It seemed that the general tinkering caused us more issues than the individuals themselves, so perhaps a couple of weeks in whatever McInnes decides as his back line will do us good. The quandary is definitely the left side of defence though, and Arneson doesn't solve that issue unfortunately. That said, the defence we have of Logan, O'Connor, Reynolds and Considine has proved that it's good enough to beat any teams at SPL level outside Celtic, and I think we just need to go with it - at least until January. I think McInnes does need to pick a settled back line though. Also, that pass from McLean and shot by Christie was top class. If that had gone in, it'd have been goal of the season material.

If he's deid, do we get our money back?

He looked pretty weak (physically) at times when he came off the bench in previous seasons. He should still have got more of a chances last season. The biggest thing for me is McInnes' willingness to give youngsters from other teams more game time than our own. Compare the minutes Christie and Maddison got last season to that of Wright and it's obvious. We had that spastic McLauchlan too, as well as the decent Hector and the shite Donervan Daniels. They all got time where our youngsters are overlooked. We actively helped in progressing other teams' youngsters. A little weird.

Good stuff. A decen't window overall from McInnes (assuming Stockley leaves). Getting rid of Storey and Stockley was imperative. I can see Maynard joining them in January for another punt for 6 months. However, he was right to bring in Maynard given we hadn't got May in and overall it's been quite decent given the departures. Hopefully we have enough between Stewart and GMS to make up one decent player!

To be fair, every reply on the thread gives the op abuse for the ridiculous suggestion. Makes for quite good reading actually.