RicoS321

I've never suggested I was an architect, nor a change manager. Nobody has been solicited to provide drawings of the 12K seater at Pittodrie as far as I'm aware, ergo, noone is qualified to "pass fact". If you can point to anything relevant I've said that's unproven, then go for it. If you can point to any evidence of a 12K seater stadium, then I'll happily be persuaded. In fact, the only thing of any importance in this thread that remains unproven is the 12K figure.

I don't think that's how it works Pedro.

Good line up. I like it. On Partick TV too for 5 or 6 quid.

Or you can fuck off with the patronising bullshit? Fear of change? Nervousness. Thanks for putting yer fatherly arm round us frightened souls, but it's fine, I'm happy to evaluate the plans like an adult and call them out for simply being a shite idea. It was the same with the UTG pish. People were accused of being frightened of change and needed to be led by the business people of Aberdeen. Again, it was just a really shite idea. Just to clarify, I'm very open to change, I get paid everyday to implement change, it's pretty much what I do. I'm even suggesting re-building Pittodrie because it's a shitehole - I have no attachment to the stands. I think Kingsford is a really shite location for a football stadium in comparison to the existing site. It's pretty simple stuff. If we were moving the other way, I'd be over the moon. Out of town offices, shopping centres, stadia, exhibition centres are inefficient retrograde steps not fit for the 21st century - Kingsford is no different. Thousands of people pointing their vehicles at the same location to spend money and then drive back again is shite. We're not B&fuckingQ, we're better than the Kingsford shite.

Apologies, I didn't explain that properly. I meant the search for one individual "superfood", when every person in the food industry already knows what a healthy diet is. I was criticising the elevation of one individual food above all others every so often so that they can make a killing from it. Kale was a recent one, avocado, beetroot, goji berries, blackcurrants etc. They've all had their time at the top in someone's interest over those that actually grow them.

Firhill? At which ground did Stevie May score his second hat trick for Aberdeen Football Club?

Fennel is a bulb. I wouldn't say it's that trendy in the UK, not that I've noticed anyway, I've had them for years as they grow pretty well in this part of the world. Not like Avocado (tasteless shite) and the "superfoods" (kale) balls. I agree though, the constant searching for the individual food that can fight off disease and make us healthy is typical of the vacant society we live in.

I genuinely think we'd have won if we'd had May. Frustrating like, should have done the business.

I'm not asking the club to explain the 12,000 figure, I'm asking for evidence (and evidence that this is the maximum figure). I'm asking for drawings. There's a huge difference. For example, I could explain part of the 12K by saying that the South Stand has to be the same height. That doesn't show me what they've done to investigate ways round that issue, which flats would be affected etc. Anyone can explain a reason for them doing something that they want to do, that's easy. I have asked DST before, they are in support of the club - as per their surveys - and are happy with the 12K figure. I haven't asked the club, because I don't want them to appease me, hence the reason I'm just commenting on a forum and nae camping ootside the cooncil with a banner. I'm simply stating that a new stadium project should have had the full input of the fans and the club should have been largely agnostic and completely transparent; neither of which they have. Hertz are spending money because their main stand needs renewed (like ours). They've not added significant corporate hospitality and, from memory, no pitch-facing corporate. I would suggest that with three new stands, we could easily increase our corporate hospitality. With the location of Pittodrie, I'd expect far more customers through the door during the week than at Westhill (next to the business park with more than adequate facilities), but if we're looking to make a killing on that then I think we'd be sadly disappointed. There's a saturation point for meeting and conference facilities and I think that both AFC and Aberdeen city have probably hit that. It certainly isn't worth moving stadium for the extra revenue. I think that's hugely over-stated. And indeed costly if not used. Also, it's not about history for me, and not a single shuttle bus. It's about location and transportation. Massive issues. Unresolved at present.

I think a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over 15 years would get more in total attendance than 20K at Kingsford. The initial glut that would tank up to a new stadium would put Kingsford significantly ahead for the first 2-3 seasons, however I think this would be quickly overtaken as crowds settle back down to a lower level (which they will). In Kingsford's case, we'll lose as much paying for the over-capacity as we gain from those games with the larger crowds (after the initial 2-3 season's excitement). I think we'd be more likely to get larger average crowds at Pittodrie @ 17K too because of the decreased supply and more tight atmosphere that it would create (a bit like closing dick's end improved our crowds). Finally, I don't think we'll get 20K at Kingsford. The club, initially, were very sketchy about the 20K+ thing. They kept saying "around" 20K. It wasn't until fans started questioning/complaining that they set out the 20K thing. I think that once we get into the build, they'll cut that down to 19K (which was mentioned at one stage) to save cash through the back door with some dubious explanation.

Even Cosgrove appeared slightly embarrassed (or at least full of humility) when discussing it. He brought it up like, which was good. I think AK's point stands, it's a large amount of money for such little effort and the BBC shouldn't be paying it. It's easy to recognise over-payment in the various talentless bastards employed at the BBC, but that shouldn't take away the double standard that overpays Cosgrove. He's a talented, but overpaid, employee. It's a bit like saying "I like Gary Lineker" in defence of his salary. That isn't, and should never be, the way it works. I wouldn't call for either to be removed, but I would call for them to take a decent pay-cut or be replaced. I've spoken to many a person down the pub who are as insightful, articulate and humble as Cosgrove, so it's nae like he exists in a vacuum.

If you look to Trump's funding in the campaign, the big money started to come in when Pence came on board. He's the one that they actually wanted, but no fucker would vote for the little rat. The method of getting Trump has worked a treat, the audiences loved him. That's not to say that they want him gone, the time is clearly not right. Did anyone hear about the latest sanctions (gas) on Russia? No? That's because Trump was behaving like a tool while the bi-partisan senate passed it (Trump was then forced to sign it). He's a handy smokescreen. With still no evidence produced on the Russian hacking either - because it probably didn't happen - there'll be no impeachment of Trump; being a dick isn't reason enough (un)fortunately. It's too easy to get drawn in to the maniac rantings of the prick, whilst ignoring the actual things happening on the ground. The gerrymandering, the voter suppression (remember the criminals voting against Trump in the election?) etc. that's all happening now in time for the next Republican victory at the next GE.

I'm buying the Garlogie Inn and turning it into a paedophile rehabilitation centre. Then I'm going to under-fund it.

Aye, pretty much how I see it. Especially the 11-1. It showed spectacularly that he didn't understand his business (good hoose builder <> good fitba chairman). It's just nae that instinctive for him. I would add though, that he's been in the mix for a long time now. I think that familiarity didn't help when the hun debacle came about. He deals with the other chairman regularly, especially the Tim, and they all actively work together in what seems to be a "lets just keep things ticking over" mode, with very little invention and very little change. That familiarity has led to him, essentially, towing the line. However, I'd expect stronger plays by both Fraser and Yule who, for men in their position(s), keep a relatively low profile. It's rare in business to see a company chairman have such responsibility without strong direction of both CFO and CEO. Our - as supporters - enemies are the SFA and perhaps the huns/tims, as well as the TV companies. Those are Milne's facilitators. There's always going to be a huge disparity. We're never likely to be represented by someone with such opposing views.

Nope. What they're saying makes entire sense if you've bothered to read the thread. It's been outlined perfectly. The basic points are: You can't increase height of the South stand due to the flats behind. You can't increase height of the Merkland due to the flats behind. Those aren't planning considerations to be debated, they're red-lines. You simply can't do it. What we don't have - and what I, and others have been asking for, and should have been provided for by the club - is the exact measurements and proposals that make up the 12,000 seater stadium proposed. The reason for this is to verify that figure. That figure (such an accurate figure I mean) should not have been obtainable without drawings and plans, so I'd like to see those plans in order that qualified people can verify them (i.e definitely nae you, and nae me either). That would show the exact dimensions proposed and any assumptions made. That should be a reasonable request for any fan/member of a club that is being asked to move from their home of 100+ years. The reason I raise is questions is because: No evidence for the 12,000 seater stadium has been provided There is no good reason for not providing that evidence if it is accurate The 12,000 figure was changed from 12,500 without explanation Post-Loirston, Milne was on record saying that we would have to look again at Pittodrie The above never happened, but would not have been raised as a possibility if the 12K figure was accurate and the club had drawings to back it up I believe the club has sought to present that figure as being as low as possible Because of that, I then believe that a larger figure could be achieved if seeking to maximise, rather than minimise the number I would accept a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over a 20K stadium at Kingsford I believe that with imagination and creativity, that figure could be reached I'm exceptionally surprised at the number of people who are happy to accept that it isn't possible based on being presented with no evidence That's about it.

Do you mean the plans that the club submitted for planning when selling Pittodrie a couple of years back? They were public if so, with no attempt to hide them. On the club website as I remember.

Pittodrie impressed me the most because it wasn't in Westhill

I was. Not specifically you, or members of this site, of course. But dons fans. The club have approached this with the "we know what's best for you" approach (also known as the "don't ask any questions" approach). As they did with Loirston. They're telling us what's best for us. In short, they've treated the support like idiots (many have lived up to that....), instead of involving them in a transparent project - like Hertz have done with their new stand. There was no scrutiny allowed for the 12K figure and no evidence presented, but fans were expected to ignore all that shite and "get behind" kingsford. That's not the way a football club should be run. Whether fan-owned or not, the club should be run as something more than a business. They're a private company that can do what the fuck they like after all, but in reality the club should be treated as an entity that transcends existing the ownership who are mere custodians. You're right, the lack of collaboration with key stakeholders has led to that divide (the cornering of the council especially - like they've learned nothing from the Loirston project) but, for me, the biggest stakeholder is the support, and they certainly haven't been fully involved.

I think yer missing some pretty important details in there though! Whilst I obviously don't believe the 12K figure, suggestions like this are pretty unhelpful as they can easily be shot down (for example, we need more area behind the stands than previously because of changed regulations). This makes it seem like there's no possible way that it could be built, when really we need to see the drawings. As AK says, it should have been a collaborative process. Everything should have been transparent, detailed and discussed.

All a bit contrived I'd say. It's like wrestling these days. I heard Johnny Hayes is going to be providing a translation service for McGregor.

Yep. Mentioned on hundreds of occasions. They used to say 12.5K, but it went down to 12K for some reason.

Nonsense. I was at Westhill shopping centre yesterday lunch time and could have been killed. I couldn't sleep last night thinking that perhaps, because I have not been supportive of the stadium, it was me they were after. I might phone into the radio or something. That should help.

Consistency I expect. He'll blow hot and cold. Not just cause of age of course, but the position he plays in can be difficult if a full back gets the better of you earlier in the game. As happened to GMS at the weekend. The full back won the first few races and had the upper hand from then on. We've paid £250K for a guy that plays in his position also, and McInnes will want to give GMS every opportunity to repay that fee (I don't believe he will, he looks the same as he always has - inconsistent and reactive). I don't think it is unreasonable yet in terms of him starting games. However, we've got the additional problem of having too many senior players in attacking roles on the bench. We need to get rid of at least one, or at least demote one in order to ensure more game time for Wright. It's the old issue of feeling that you have to play players just because they've been signed. McInnes addressed this pretty quickly with Storey, giving him little game time, so I expect he'll do similar with Maynard too as the season progresses. That leaves just Rooney to keep happy, and I imagine that May will make way over the next few games to give Rooney a run in the striker role for the last 20 minutes of games, with Maynard featuring less and less. I suppose it's a case of keeping players happy, and I suspect that younger players are easier to inform that they're nae getting a game than guys you've just attracted to the club with the promise of fitba. They suffer from familiarity I suppose. I don't think McInnes will be alone in that though.

That's not how the application was been made though, so I don't think they can do that, it'll be all or nothing wouldn't it? The club will be wanting to force their hand.

Nah, the loans thing was way back. They've had more than enough time to get something sorted after several attempts. The most recent being the BOD one with RGU that fell through very late in the process because of access times or something (stuff that should have been made clear on day one). That makes a mockery of the various statements about it being necessary to have training ground and stadium in the same location - we were more than happy for that not to be the case very recently. The scaremongering around what will happen if the stadium doesn't go through is a little crass like, and using the training as any part of that is massively disingenuous. Despite the shite transport plan, I think it'll sail through in a few weeks.