RicoS321

I was joking, I didn't realise he'd actually signed. I'm much too chilled out to boo a dons player. It's nae his fault the dons are meekly going cap in hand to a bunch of weegie fucks. It does a feel a bit weird like. But then it was absolutely fine for Pawlett to go to Saints and Machoir to Killie, so I suppose it's no different. Fuck it, if he gets us second place then he's got my backing.

Dinna spik shite min. How are you going to boo the tim cunt if you dinna turn up?

Ceta. It's probably about the same as TTIP. Investor Dispute Settlement being the key to its anti-democractic fucked-upedness. I suspect it'll be dead too, because the Europeans will stop it (not including the UK) but with a worse replacement in line once Brexit occurs.

Whilst I dislike the idea of Christie coming here, I think he has played a handful of times this season and there was one game I think he played quite well in. If we've got a defined option to buy him (subject to his agreement obviously) at the end of the deal then I have no problem with it. If we're just training a guy up to return to a rival, I don't like it (I don't actually like us breeding guys like Maddison etc ahead of our own, but I understand it). Even though I am pretty much resigned to the fact that the Tims are no longer our rivals, but a team in a league of their own that sit comfortably above the rest due to massive financial superiority. Shinnie is an interesting one. He's performed a good partnership with Jack in the middle, to the extent that they are really our only viable option in there at present unless we're playing at home and want to release another midfielder into the attack (that does seem to congest the attack though, illustrated by Pawlett coming on against Stranraer). Shinnie is an intelligent player who allows Jack to push forward and knows when to hold his position. If he's keen to play there and not keen to play left back then we need to make it pretty clear from this window on that he's playing that role and get someone in to address the left back spot. We also need another midfielder in to challenge him and Jack for that spot and that will determine if he really is good enough for centre mid (I suspect he is). Is Easton that left back? I'm not convinced. Strong defensively and a decentish crosser when he gets into position, but slow when up against a quick player. He's basically Considine. If we get him, then it's a straight choice between Considine and Reynolds at centre half, with one leaving in the summer. I'd prefer a quicker left back so we can go kamikaze at the opposition, but at the same time I see the benefits of the lop-sided strong tackling defender at left back giving space for a good winger (Hayes in our case) to stretch his legs in front of him. May would be good. Direct competition for Rooney only though. None of this "he can play out wide too" pish.

Thon looks fine like. Would have to replace the beef with something different for the wife like. Perhaps Turkey or some such. Or nuts.

Given I plucked the 18K out of the air for sake of argument (if it was read from here, which I doubt), I doubt anyone will vote for it. I wouldn't even vote for it. Why would anyone vote for a stadium without drawings that could be unfeasible and isn't being proposed over one with drawings that is fully designed and in for planning? If we were presented with and 18K design in the existing site, that'd be an entirely different story obviously. The argument from me is we're not seeing evidence. I want to see the diagram of the 12.5K (out of interest, do any of the qualified folks think it would be possible to return an accurate figure without a diagram?), what assumptions were used for things like moving the mainer toward the car park and the maximum possible height of the South stand allowed so as not to block light out from the flats (and any possible mitigations of that - glass/perspex in part or whatever). I want to see that the club made every possible effort to remain at Pittodrie and give the fans a choice and that there was no pre-conceived agenda and a consultation with a pre-determined outcome. As Slim says, there was a 600K consultation (I thought it was 400K, but I think he's right). All I remember seeing from this was a series of bullet points.

I'm the opposite. See if some fucker puts chocolate in my fruit scone or rock cake, they get a punch in the dick. As an aside, I ken it wasn't the point you were making, but the whole chocolate thing has got out of hand these days. Chocolate on athin, it's rank. Chocolate is unacceptable on the following, it just doesn't go: The above scone or rock cake flapjacks cheesecake Thon yoghurt bar things Any form of energy bar thing Any fruit (apart from maybe cherries, which I don't like anyway)

Fuck the new guff cunts.

Is it Michelle McManus (with emphasis on the anus)? If so, I heard her on radio Scotland th'ither wik. Just happened to turn it on and despite the pish music, I wasn't totally offended by her presenting so that's an achievement (nae for her obviously, who widnae gie a fuck).

Onions are fucking magic. Try whacking them in a soup and cook them less and less each time (feel free to blend the soup). That'll wean you onto them. It's mushrooms for me. I always try and like them, and I'll eat them if there on my plate (as I've never not finished a meal in living memory), but I just think they're cunts.

I'm worried in case it comes true.

The series is on Amazon I think. Was considering watching it, but I was too freaked out by the title.

I hate Hertz much more than the Jute fucks.

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?