RicoS321

Fantastic news. Wonder how long until he starts at left back.

It suffers from its own atrocious design, that is all. It fucks the countries that need a leg up, whilst rewarding those who least need it. The yanks are dicks, but they back up their states through their currency.

Except you're not correct. There is no evidence at all that we'd have to sell flats, and you provided none. Evidence would be a diagram showing the trajectory of light over a proposed development. Anything else is informed or uninformed speculation. But you're probably not a dick. That was uncalled for. Apologies. I have no evidence, nor have I ever suggested I did. The onus has never been on me to provide it. I'm suggesting that there's a drawing out there that shows the 12.5K that I'd like to see. It must exist, or else that figure wouldn't.

Seriously? Whilst more convenient for holidays, it's a fucking disaster of a currency, by design. It only came to being through being shat out of an argument between France and Germany, and its lack of recycling mechanism would kill Scotland. Or it might not, but on the other hand we'd be profiting at the serious expense of Greece, Ireland or some other victim. It completely lacks the "in it together" design that the US dollar has (for example), and goes against everything that the European project is supposed to promote. It's a disgrace, and Scotland should stay the fuck away from it.

I won't quote it Tom, but fantastic post (the big een). Answers a lot of questions, thanks. The thing I struggle with, though, is that there are huge hurdles for the new stadium too. Why should these be seen as something that can be overcome, but not those at Pittodrie? I'd have thought that those more used to a stadium on their doorstep would be more pliable. Or is it just the fact that there are no specific planning regulations that prevent Kingsford (is it on greenbelt)? Also, would it have been that difficult to outline the 12,500 seater stadium as well as provide the reasoning that you have (otherwise how do you come up with that figure)? They spent £400K on the consultation if I remember correctly. Surely that could buy a set of outline plans? It's just always struck me that the club have not provided the detail, or even attempted to, so that people can see for themselves. The consultation struck me as one of those consultations that governments do to provide "evidence" to back up a plan they've already devised and are going to go ahead with regardless, so I hope folk can see why I'm sceptical. Anyway, no further questions, thanks for your post.

Aye, very good. None of that is evidence that we'd need to buy the flats, which you entirely made up and presented in a condescending tone. Tom has the decency to answer the question properly, you just come across as a dick.

Excellent post Tom, some great stuff in there. Interesting. Have you ever compared the depth of Hearts/Hibs versus oor Soother? It's be interesting to see the required space and what we're missing. Also, I've never thought we'd actually have to build over roads and so on. Pittodrie street is very wide, there's a lot of space to move a stand back, I'd reckon about 4 metres at least just by removing parking on that stretch of road. That may cause issue on non-match day, but you could just open the DD concourse for parking for shop-visitors (or the mainer car park). That road isn't used for traffic parking on match day, opposition bus, drop-offs aside. Finally, as you mention, our stands are just bolted on terraces, meaning they're really shallow. We could easily gain a few extra rows by making them steeper. Each row adds a few hundred seats. But, again, because we can't see the breakdown of the 12,500 seater suggestion, it's impossible to put it to bed, or to see if it would be possible to eek out an extra few thousand seats with better design. With your architectural experience, do you genuinely believe that we'd lose the entire capacity of the South Stand by re-building the South, Mainer and Merkland? It seems insane. Or a lie. I'm going for the latter. And to the rest of you reading my solo attempts to remain, what sort of capacity would make your decision difficult? Hypothetically, if we were offered a 17-18K stadium at Pittodrie or a 20K one at Westhill, which would you choose? Or, more importantly, which do you think would be best for the club? It's interesting that Tom says that the 20K was a red-line for supporters. My opinion was that the 20K was a red-line for moving stadium in order to make it worthwhile building a new one rather than an actual requirement. I actually think it'll get knocked down to 19K by the time its actually built anyway, but that's just an entirely un-backed suspicion.

So you have no evidence then? So we wouldn't have to buy the flats? We'd just have to design the current stand differently? The current stand that is almost flat and provides a terrible view for those that aren't directly on the half way line or standing in an uncovered part. Even if you lost 30-50% in depth, you'd gain another 10-15% in height. Lets say you'd lose 3,000 seats in the South Stand (I'm sure there could be an increase in the Main and Merkie), so what? How does that get us to a capacity of 12,500? My point isn't that we should be moving from Pittodrie (that's just my opinion), it's that we're being lied to and not being given all the options. Because if you offered folks an 18,000 seater at Pittodrie or a circa 20,000 seater at Kingsford, I'm absolutely certain the former would get the support. So we're being told 12,500 seats so that only an idiot would think we'd stay put. I want to see the evidence to back up the 12,500 seats and no-one is able to give it. I want to be able to make an informed choice based on evidence rather than some happy-clappy shite about "needing to move on". You haven't provided any evidence, despite a pretty confident statement.

Shiraz. Tidy.

Great, another centre party, that's what we need. Whilst I'm all for integration with Europe, the Euro and the European parliament is a fucked up disaster (the Euro especially) that showed no sign of ever changing.

Aye, very good, take the easy bit and ignore the bit you don't have an answer for. Would it seriously make a difference for a season? It was entirely hypothetical too, I don't believe any of our stands would take a year to re-build, but I've no idea, nor do I think we'd need to share, I'm sure it could be worked around like the beach end was. Inverness shared with us and didn't end them. I'm merely suggesting that there a million ways round the issue, and it's very short term (not suggesting it's easy either btw). Certainly not worth moving ground for.

Have you got any evidence to back that up?

So? It's going to last another hundred years (in theory), a few years of dicking about is a drop in the ocean. We could even share with Utd for a season if really necessary. Do you think the Tims regret using hampden for a year, or should they have moved out of Glasgow to some green belt land that saved away fans coming into the city? You're asking the wrong questions, it really is just a question of whether you think the city centre location is better than Westhill and then you hold the club to account for the rest. I don't think we should make our decision on whether or not to move our club out of its city on an imagined new planning law that will prevent us getting permission on the application we've not yet submitted.

Yep, I think the traffic one is a non-issue. To the extent that it's difficult to take him seriously on his other issue, parking, which will be an issue. At least he didn't use the fear of hooliganism approach.

Do you know his reasons for doing so? Care to share them?

Trump and Gove struggle to grasp the rules of Rock, Paper, Scissors.

There's actually no evidence of that in the accounts, despite what we've all heard. If players were being paid directly from Milne, then we'd have a bit of a player registration issue on our hands too. Any money Milne has loaned to the club has been converted to Preferential shares as far as I'm aware, which would become liquid on the sale of the ground. Have you any evidence to back up your assertion? Land acquisition is a long game, so it wouldn't be unusual for someone with plenty of cash to look for a gain 20+ year gain. However, I think Milne enjoys being AFC chairman and is quite passionate about the club (on the pitch, anyway) and so I don't believe he has the "flats on the grun" motivation. I just think he's blinkered and his skin in the game is making him this way. He's just not the type who could look at the stadium options objectively with his own cash (even though it's just debt, not cash) on the line.

To clarify, I don't believe Milne is there for the land or money these days, although I suspect that might have been the case 20 years ago. Neither can I ever prove it either way, so it's never an argument I'd be willing to get into. I just think that, whatever his motivations, his idea to move stadium to Westhill is a ridiculous one that has been deliberately mis-sold to the fans. The evidence is there to back that up. Milne should be no more than a custodian for the club, as should all chairmen - much like Budge at Hertz. It's a hugely privileged position in itself and making himself or his companies money should never come into decision making (again, I have no evidence to suggest it is). If you can't see there would be a problem with that, then I'm surprised. If an agenda is being pushed that isn't best for the club, its fans and its long term future, but good for the chairman and investors (the Donalds perhaps) then can you honestly say you wouldn't have a problem with that? If we were being offered several choices, Milne was open about the personal gains from each option, then I'd have no problem with mutual benefit existing but that clearly isn't the case here.

Brilliant article Manc, fantastic find.

I'd love to see yer workings on that. I'm pretty hot on the DIY, I'm certain I could eek out another 3 thoosan seats.

Really good point. If the stadium doesn't go ahead, I'd be more than happy for a 100M statue of Eoin Jess to take its place (I would have suggested Willie Miller, but I don't think we should give them our best player, the cunts). I don't want to be tarred with the cunt brush.

That's a pity, I'd had enough after the channel 4 one so didn't watch it. I'll get it on catch up. Outside their news team, BBC usually do some good stuff.

The first is plain wrong, it's 1.2 miles from the train station and based pretty close to the centre of the city the team plays in, it would be difficult to get a better location. There are also buses from Masada, KGB etc. Parking is fine from South and West of the city, but North is a pain in the hoop. I came from Torry for a recent home game at 14:40 and was parked and in the ground by 14:55. Tims game aside, there is plenty parking. Also, if you're willing to walk for ten minutes after the game, it's equally fine. Most importantly, and it's the point that always gets overlooked in these new stadium pitches, is the point that all of the majority of new stadium transport suggestions could also happen in the current location. A park and ride at the new AECC for example, buses from the train station as touted by the new stadium proposal could all happen now, but we don't do it. There is nothing specific about a new stadium that means these options are any more valid. You're ignoring that evidence. The point about cover is irrelevant. If we are raising £25M, then we can address the stand covering issue. I don't believe for a second that the architect types on here (you know who you are) think that they couldn't anything at all with £25M to make Pittodrie a cracking, comfortable ground (not as easily as a new ground obviously). It just requires basic imagination and a little will power. The point being that the options are not "build a stadium" or "do nothing", they are "build a stadium" or "raise that money and spend it differently". Jesus, if we're making points about the new stadium, can we at least remove the ones that have nothing to do with a new stadium? It'd make the argument a lot simpler. Again, the training facility is not predicated on a new stadium (hence our various planning arrangement over the years). It's a totally different project, and there's absolutely no valid reason at all for it to be in the same location as the stadium as is proven by the majority of clubs in world football. In short, look at the benefits of the new stadium objectively and weigh up whether they are benefits that are predicated on their being a new stadium or not and then weigh up the remainder of those benefits against moving away from Pittodrie. Here's some benefits that are not predicated on moving (i.e. they can be achieved easily in the current location): - Mortgage - Naming rights - Share issue - Coach services/Improved transport links to the game - New training facilities - Repair costs for current stadium - Covered stands in current stadium - Supporters' bar - Better facilities - Improved catering options All of the above can be addressed in situ, funded by the first three on the list if required. Not to suggest in any way that it would be easy, just possible within our budget (that budget being the one designated for the new stadium less sale of Pittodrie for clarification). Here are some remaining benefits of the new stadium that can only be achieved by moving: - easier for me to get to - easier access via bypass from North and South (in theory, parking arrangements, speedy exit tbc) - easier to design and build - better looking stadium (more uniform) - in theory, more atmospheric - initial wave/increase of support for the new shiny thing (not to be under-estimated) Hopefully you guys can add more and help persuade likes of me that I'm wrong. I think these are the obvious ones, and I've not tried to be deliberately pro-Pittodrie. Unfortunately the argument keeps getting framed incorrectly which leads to my obvious frustration. Ye dicks.

It should have been nipped in the bud immediately and quietly, with the player kept informed. There was no point in even entertaining any bid at all, it's like having a chocolate bar in the cupboard: eventually you'll eat it. Just dinna buy the chocolate in the first place. There's no real business case for selling Hayes in this window, even at £3M. The risk of not finishing second if Hayes goes is massive. Hayes is probably the difference between winning and drawing about 5-6 games between now and Jan based on the first half of the season. The loss of those 10-12 points would see us lose second. The cost to replace him, in January, with a suitable replacement would be, at a guess, circa £1M (there's currently no player in Scotland that fits the bill as far as I'm aware). The likelihood of getting a player to come to the dons that costs that amount is zero. If we don't finish second, it'll be a huge financial cost. I'd reckon a serious drop in season ticket sales. Drop in prize money, drop in euro receipts next season (probably/possibly). Probably a round less in the cup too. We're probably talking seven figures all in. The return to the huns into second at first time of asking would also have a big long term effect. We'd be killing future season ticket revenues too, and seriously. The goodwill gained over the last few years would dwindle to nothing. I think a conservative estimate of losses for not finishing second would be in the region of £2M. The important figure, then, is not what we can get for Hayes now (lets say £3M*), it's the difference between what we can get now versus what we can get in the summer. I'd say that January generally commands significantly higher fees, so lets say we could only get £2M* in the summer, then we lose out on £1M. The options then: Sell now, get £1M additional revenue, finish third (reduced business) = £1M loss Sell now, get £1M additional revenue, finish second (retain business) = £1M profit Sell now, get £1M additional revenue, buy replacement for £1M, finish second (retain business) = 0 profit + good replacement Sell now, get £1M additional revenue, buy replacement for £1M, finish third (retain business) = 0 profit + shite replacement Hayes stays, finish second, sell in summer = £1M profit Hayes stays, finish third, sell in summer = £1M loss Hopefully these are the types of scenario that they're looking at. The most important being the fact that we won't lose out on the transfer fee, just the difference in transfer fee selling now as opposed to the summer. *In terms of player valuation, it'll be based on the value of the contract, which is why we command such low fees in this country (Tims aside). Hayes's remaining contract will be worth at most £250K I'd reckon, so offering double that probably isn't seen as ridiculous by the buying club. I don't think we'll ever get to the type of fee we think is reasonable, or that it will make it worthwhile for us. On the other side of the coin, we should let the player leave in the summer if that is his wish and we are entitled to ask him to see out the season.

Horseshit. The onus is on those suggesting we spend £50M, not the other way round. Why would that ever be the case in anything, ever, that's just fucking ridiculous. I have never, and will never, suggest that Pittodrie is in a fit state. Because that's not the fucking argument. We're raising upward of £25M not reliant on moving stadium. I, as a lifelong fan, am not retarded enough to accept that nothing good could be done with some, part, all of pittodrie for that sort of money, and I would like the opportunity to see some ideas and options on the table that demonstrate that. As it stands, we have a temporary custodian of a community club pushing an agenda that he, alone, has decided was required and has been pushed over the last 20 years to the extent that most people have accepted - fait accompli - that it has to happen, despite not having been presented with any evidence to back it up. It's why I mentioned the "balancing the books" that the UK government talked about during the austerity period (continuing). It couldn't be backed up by anything, it was economically illiterate and just incorrect, but people heard it repeated so many times that they thought it must be true. To the extent that BBC journalists/reporters/interviewers would repeat the phrase themselves when questioning politicians. The same is true here, absolutely the same. In truth, I don't mind the location for the club on a personal level, but it's not a very good location for the dons. Only a person who believes that there are no other possible options ever would think that it is. Because 600 spaces at the Arnhall busines park is fucking retarded (walking down the side of a fucking dual carriageway, seriously?), and so are all the other travel arrangements.