RicoS321

Why? What piece of evidence swayed it for you? Great speech by McInnes like, he's very good. He's right (as are you tlg) that we need training facilities in order to keep ahead Hertz, Hibs and the huns. He wasn't really able to articulate the reasons behind requiring training and stadium in the same location, probably cause there aren't any particularly obvious ones. For what it's worth, I also think Pittodrie is a shite hole and needs to be replaced. It's entirely about location for me. It's like moving yer cinema fae Union Square to Badentoy.

All this talk of "great memories" is a little bit insensitive, isn't it?

Aye, shame like. Loved his time at the dons, so fair play to him. Some good nights under his tenure. Some horrendous too, but that's what makes fitba good.

Exactly. Fuck all in the scheme of Bellfield, Loirston, Kingsford and Tommy Wright. The minimum we should be doing. I think that's vastly over-stating it. But, yes. There is very little existing surrounding private property behind the mainer. This is no different to the private road concern that stopped Loirston. It was a perfectly surmountable issue that the club chose not to pursue, rather have a rant at the cooncil. Again, we've not approached the council, so we've nae idea. It's publicly owned, so I'd suggest that a sympathetic council would be far easier to bring to an agreement than getting them to support a whole new stadium. Again, without seeing diagrams to show which flats are affected, it's not particularly useful to speculate. It could be entire buildings, or could just be a few flats. Again, work it out and get it costed. But show us the workings and show us plans so people can see the evidence for themselves. The emergency services route and concourse is interesting. I'd assume the away end would move to the beach end, thus there'd be access to the entire Souther from the beach end or graveyard side of things. Not sure if that works regulation-wise, but I can't see why not. I'd say that's the least you could do......

Aye, you're right. We have a terrible system here too, but it's hard to get a grasp on the yanks' mentality. Especially the breadth of that mentality, where huge numbers of people have entirely opposing views that can't possibly reconciled, but are too popular to be ignored (like we can ignore the EDL here for example... or the Lib Dems). I think the yanks could do with being a little less united states and a bit more independent states. Force some change through that way. Brexit for Dakota I say.

Again, nobody is arguing that Reynolds is strong....

Your last paragraph is just meaningless guff. We don't need to accept anything, we need to be presented with evidence. Nobody is making the argument that change isn't necessary, simply that the suggested change isn't very good - stop conflating arguments. Whether you or I think somewhere is acceptable is irrelevant, it's whether or not it is demonstrably more accessible and viable than existing - that has not been evidenced. Your first part is exactly what I'm asking for. All these costs are part of the project and would be detailed in a well-presented feasibility study/dummy planning application. I could provide a list of things for Kingsford: access road, foundations, hazardous waste ( ) etc. and say "where are we getting the money from?". It's meaningless. None of the problems you pose are insurmountable, they just add cost and are going to be done by a developer buying the site so certainly aren't prohibitive to us (in terms of physical ability), they get done all the time in building works. A detailed explanation of that cost and what takes us over our £35M available budget if that is the case. Just listing these points to make it sound as if the idea is ridiculous is disingenuous, they are just things that add cost that you or I have not costed or been shown a costing of to make any series point on. As for the training centre. The notion that it needs to be anywhere near the ground is ridiculous, as is evidenced all over the UK and Europe. It will perhaps save a small amount yearly going forward, but nothing close to the cost of shuttle buses every week forever. The cost of the training centre will be the same whether it's in Kingsford or Inverurie, I couldn't care less (although I very much agree one is required). In fact, I think Kingsford is an excellent place for the training facilities. Cause there's fuck all else there.

It's really intriguing. The problem is that people keep feeding the troll. He's right about the statue thing (sort of), it just didn't need to happen. You educate people and educate people and then when everyone understands you quietly remove the statue without fanfare or complaint. The Saddamesque toppling of the statue - that's been there for a bit of time - just gives folk like Trump the opportunity to act like a fucker. The slightest gap to slide his veiled bigotry through. Racism won't stop because you throw people in jail or tape their mouths up, it happens through time and education. People like Trump are narcissistic and will jump on any cause to further themselves, you just reduce the number of people who listen to him. The other issue is what next? With self-righteous indignation across the board at anything Trump says or does (let's be honest, not all of it is justified), we're heading straight back to a Clinton or Obama. A bought and paid for corporate shill. The American got the fact that something wasn't right, they just chose the wrong option to fix it (or more correctly, they weren't given another option). Until there's another option, then perhaps the Americans are best served by the mentalist in the white house. He might just force something better out of the works.

If you're going to call out 100%AK's shite, at least do it with something that's not absolute bullshit yersel. The above is just patronising airy-fairy shite about feelings. We've asking for facts. Not some straw-man bollocks about favourite restaurants that have nothing to do with anything. You mention re-directing streets? Where's the evidence that says that can't be done? Where's even the slightest attempt to make that happen from our club? Where's the application to the council to do that? You're telling me that the club couldn't put heaps of pressure - as it's currently doing to push through Kingsford - on the council to change one street in the city right next to the existing stadium? We're saying that an application for an entire stadium in a completely new location with next to zero transport plan is easier to get through planning than re-routing Pittodrie street? I don't really believe that. I'm not suggesting it would be easy, I'm suggesting there has been no effort to make it happen, rather there has been active effort to make it not happen.

Of course I do. That's the absolute minimum they should be doing. They should be investigating moving the Main stand and re-routing the road, stepping the South stand from right to left (as you face it) to avoid blocking light whilst gaining more seats, investigate buying the bottom row of flats in the building most affected in order to gain an extra metre or two in height. Using general imagination and working out what maximum size they could reach, and allowing fans to submit a series of questions (stupid or otherwise) to help satisfy any concerns. List the various options and reasons why those options are unfeasible. Take suggestions and develop them or send them back with a reason why they're gash. Involve the community and fans in a decision that will affect them long after Stewarty moves on. That's what they did for Loirston, that's what they're doing for Kingsford and I dare say they did similar for Bellfied (was that what it was called? I canna mine now) too. If they haven't already done that, then why not? If I could see the drawings and see the work done, be given the opportunity to submit ideas and make comment, I'd definitely believe it. As I can't see the drawings (not even yours...!), I don't believe it. The cost of being inclusive and open/transparent is nothing and will only benefit the club in the long run. I dare say it'd even be the difference between getting Kingsford through planning or not. Threats of "we'll have to play in Glasgow" just make me more suspicious. Those aren't the comments of a trustworthy person, who's made a watertight and transparent case.

I dinna think anyone argued that his strength was his biggest attribute....

It's not easily accessible, as evidenced by you. You said earlier in the thread that you don't currently get a season ticket at Pittodrie because it's hard to get to. Yet you think having people from the city centre travelling the exact opposite route somehow is.

Nit, it wouldn't alleviate anything. They've put out their "fact sheet", which says 12K seats. What we need is a set of reasonably detailed plans that show the 12,000 seater stadium. An open consultation with the fans (let's call them: "the real owners of AFC") where the club is a neutral facilitator. It's ludicrous that anyone finds anything less than that acceptable. They haven't done this because they simply can't back up their 12,000 seat statement with evidence. Mainly because they paid a firm to come up with the answer they wanted to hear rather than do an extensive piece of work to provide a stadium where Pittodrie currently sits. That's it in a nutshell for me - the club haven't actually paid anyone to try to build a stadium on the site of Pittodrie. Does nobody else find that fact absolutely bizarre?

Instead of saying "Lets accept", how about we base our decision on fact? That would be a lot better surely? Why the fuck would anyone want to leave their city centre, prime location, stadium on a "lets accept"? I find it absolutely fucking absurd that any dons fan with any ability to think, thinks that moving is a good idea based on being presented with zero evidence whatsoever from the club that backs up the inability to renovate Pittodrie. I find it staggering. I like the Kingsford design, it looks okay. I realise there's not that much that can really make stadiums look amazing, so this one's not bad. I don't agree that it looks like a lego St Mirren-esque ground. However, I do think it'll look shite isolated in a field in the middle of nowhere. That, to me, does make it a little bit more St Johnstone than Hertz or Hibs.

^^^This. The old "his legs have gone" (whatever the fuck that means) after a poor run of form. It got used for Anderson way before he retired after a few poor games (around the time Hector had a decent run). It's like an overwhelming desire to write players off before their time. It's weird. There's no way the club doesn't test these guys in terms of pace and fitness and McInnes would be the first to know if Reynolds was losing pace. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it. What I did see was a player who, after injury, went on a poor run of form which continued for nearly a season. Since the turn of the year, he's made very few mistakes and generally coped well. Due, mostly, to his good positional sense, his cautious approach and his obvious pace (Willie Miller was actually talking about it - his pace - last week on radio Scotland, saying what a great attribute it was). Reynolds' biggest problem has always been his strength and his lack of footballing ability (on the ball). His reading of the game is excellent, he's always looking at what his partner is doing and plays the line fantastically well. He's no world-beater, but he's easily one of the best defenders in the league (as most of our players are in their respective positions). He's better than Berra at Hertz for example (in my opinion), and certainly would get in the hun, hibs and St Johnstone teams too. Reynolds has had a few very good years for us, and didn't let us down when called upon last season either (our biggest defensive issues occurred when he was missing). I reckon we owe him a bit more time to prove he's lost it before ditching him. Christ, he played alongside Taylor and got regular clean sheets. Is it any wonder he suffered after Anderson left? A shitter player would have crumbled alongside such an unpredictable centre half.

Nice. Would look ace on Merkland road.

He's played full back a few times for us. Never successfully. Mainly because he's shite with the ball at his feet (Saturday aside!). He's good at centre half as he understands his limitations. He's got a good couple of years left in him.

I think it's fucking ace. Well done lads. If they die, they die. Good stuff loons. Beats sitting in an office.

It's a celebration of queen, her subjects and of the past glorious conquering of minion countries such as Scotland. With hurdles and shit. Don't let them fool you. If I were you, I'd smear shite on yer tickets and send them back to England.

To extend on Donsdaft's point, I'm surprised you partake in such Imperialist celebrations? Is Scotland's competing in this not an affront to your uber-patriotic nationalism? Is not a sign of Scotland's desire to live in permanent servitude to it's Queen and British master? Just asking like....

I think we've made our last signing. We've got a good enough squad to finish second, it's up to Deek to make that happen now. Our defence of Consi, Reynolds, Logan and a.n.other has had hunners of clean sheets over the last few years, that'll continue. With Arneson as back up, I'd say that's enough for the league and cups. Full back is probably our weakest position (given Considine and Arneson can cover at centre half), but we should adequately cover this by promoting Harvie when required. It'd be nice to see him get some game time when we're comfortable in games in order that there's not a huge step up. We're strong enough that we can carry a youngster at times if required. Littering our squad with yer Meekings's is unnecessary and detrimental to our youth system. It's been a while since we've produced a half decent centre half or full back from the youths like, with Robertson probably the last to make a go of it professionally (Grimmer, I suppose, but we barely saw him). I think at some stage we just have to begin to develop our way out of any perceived squad issues. Little risk in doing so, in my opinion, until January.

The Portuguese fuck used the phrase We are the people in his post-match interview. Tragic as fuck. He can only be being told to say that shite by the hun hierarchy. Fucked up like. It'd be like Deek telling folk to stand free after a defeat. Except he'd have earned it.

I thought the Hamilton second yellow against us was harsh, Christie made an absolute meal of it. Now the hun gets sent off for the hun in strange circumstances. I suspect this thread will need closed soon at this rate.

Honestly, I didn't think either of them were horrendous decisions. The hun one I thought was a penalty all day long first time I saw it. On second viewing, the guy made an absolute meal of it. Seeing the tim one now, it's a definite penalty. However, it wasn't exactly a blatant one. It's nae like he nailed him, just an accidental trip. I think the Tim one was incorrect, but not a bad decision and the hun one was correct but the guy made it look much worse than it was.

The good thing about him is that we don't have to amend our style of play to suit him. He'll slot nicely into the Rooney position. That gives us direct competition for Rooney and a chance to get him fit and scoring too, rather than trying to play him into form when he's off the boil. We have one striker role, we should be looking at two good strikers and a youth team backup. We need to ship one of Storey, Stockley or Maynard shortly and look to promote Mclennan or someone else fae the youths as bench-sitter. It would seem a much better way to control our playing budget.