RicoS321

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.

Decent(ish) piece on Channel 4 dispatches tonight. Not a big fan of the presenter, he doesn't generally ask the right questions, and always seems a little dumbed down with gimmicky shite for stupid people (badges this week). Anyway, covered the obvious elephant in the room for those that think that Trump will "gut the establishment", by delving into his political cronies that he's appointed to his cabinet. Fuck me, it's a cabal of utter cunts. Impressive like.

We don't need a new stadium. That's a myth. A spectacular one propagated over 20 years with little evidence to back it up. It's the fitba equivalent of "we need to balance the books" shite told by the government (UK). I'm a nae-sayer, and you cunts can shove yer pish stadium that isn't in fucking Aberdeen up yer collective hoops. Fuck yer Westhill FC pish. It's just fuckin Homebase, or Ikea of the fitba world. For losers and dicks. I'm going to hide a fash behind the radiator in each of the new corporate boxes.

It's dons legend Chris Antoniazzi. Obviously.

Haven't been in years. Was quite good last time I was there over a decade ago.

To be fair, I'm not sure he/she mentioned voting for anyone. There was very little (apart from the weird first paragraph) in the diatribe that wasn't correct too. Trump is a dick, a narcissist, nepotist and utter scumbag, a complete cunt. But every single point he/she makes (apart from the weird second paragraph) is correct. Buzzfeed have shown themselves to be just as bad as Trump in their use of the story (not so much CNN, but they crossed an ethical line). If this is politics grinding Trump down, then they're making a total cunt of it. As far as I can see, their shite attempt - once again - to smear him has backfired spectacularly and will probably make him more popular. Trump exists cause of this shite. He exists because we've spent that last 20 years accepting this sort of shite journalism as our main source of information. He exists because our journalists have stopped asking questions, and politicians have stopped even attempting to answer them - the same as Nigel Farage in this country, and the Tory party, and Jezza Corbyn for that matter. The BBC, CNN and the vast majority of the mainstream press (god only knows what's happened to the guardian in the last year, and the times is awful) have pursued the easy stories and allowed our politicians just to make shite up, and then deflect on a daily basis. They've ignored the big issues and allowed vested interests to steer public debate into narrow channels setting an easy emotional agenda. They're not setting the agenda, they're not tackling the economics of the world and they're not educating the population. Otherwise MadMax would know that Donald Trump is a cunt, and that he's not anti-establishment, and that he doesn't give a fuck about American jobs (whatever the fuck that means). Anyway, welcome aboard MadMax, hope you come back on and entertain with some beezers like yer first een.

There's a lot of mintal fucks still like him though. Give him a few months in charge and wait for him to fuck a few things up first. Then shoot him. Not a fatal shot though. just enough to make him piss himself. Then take a photo and post it online. That's the only sure-fire way to bring him down.

I think he's basically saying that Jack is good enough to do better and a player of his ability shouldn't still be here in 3 years time. It shows he's as disappointed with Jack's progress as the rest of us but that it isn't too late for him to turn it round. I'd agree. He's right, our players have got to want something bigger and better and Aberdeen should be seen as a stepping stone to better things. That's a good standard to set. Hopefully Jack will respond to it. I think he will.

Good interview. On-the-pitch decisions aside, he's a pretty shrewd operator. Really interested by his comments about Jack. Setting the bar high for him, and making him understand that he's no longer the young player with superstar potential. Making him work on the dons' terms. Good stuff. Putting pressure, and a bit of psychological influence, onto the guys looking for a move as if to say: don't sell yourselves short for any old move, get the right one - by implication, Cardiff and Hearts are not those moves.

It's completely unverified work, as admitted by those media. The notion that the CIA or FBI should be trusted to not make shite up should have gone out the window a long time ago. The journalists should simply do their job and work on verifying the story, not printing any old shite just because it happened to come from a government agency. Did Iraq not teach these cunts anything? The rules of journalism haven't changed. You get a story, you verify that its true, you print it. It's the political equivalent of Yerda Selsavon signing for the dons. It's fucking unacceptable to print a story about how there might be a story. If you're a fucking journalist then you investigate and investigate until you find the truth.

Jesus, can you nae work the internet like... https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.tp70Kr2xj#.pkYvaNk1B Edit: that was to Manc

This. It just isn't worth the money to accept anything less. He'll still have a year left in the summer and given his consistency, that sort of offer - or not far off - will definitely come back in if a team is serious about signing him. The board have to understand the importance of second place to the dons this season. It is absolutely vital. Our season ticket sales will tank if the scum 1,2 is resolved. People will lose interest so quickly as we're shunted out of the picture (like we almost are currently). Coupled with the huge negative effect it will have on der hun, £500K or so (the difference between selling Johnny now and in the summer) just won't cover it. The long term effects of the hun becoming the second best team in the country every year again could be devastating for a team like the dons, and I don't believe we can finish second without Hayes - he's that important. It's worrying that McInnes is even acknowledging the bid, it's almost a "we're open for business" type moment.

More worrying is who they were made up by. Fucked up shit like. Printed by a compliant media. I suspect Buzzfeed will print any shite, but CNN and the like are clearly corrupted. Excellent to here from Glen Greenwald on both channel 4 and bbc tonight. The Trump bad, non-Trump good viewpoint of the interviewers was absurd. Neither Snow or Maitlis (think it was her) could get to grips with the fact that Trump is a dick but that doesn't justify making up news, and that Clintons leaked emails were exactly that - factual, leaked emails.