Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, fatshaft said: It's amazing isn't it? Unbelieveable. The thing is, there are genuine concerns with the stadium for people to have. Instead of articulating them properly we get pensioners making signs, and forum dwellers fabricating nonsense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, fatshaft said: 40,000 https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/sites/aberdeen-cms/files/2018-01/Population Projections Aberdeen City.pdf Sore one for Aberdonians with men due to outweigh women in the future. #prayforthesheep Does anyone know if this forecasts will have changed since the Brexit vote? Surely migration will slow down? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Illgresi said: This thread's straw man fallacy counter has just exploded. 16 minutes ago, Illgresi said: Unbelieveable. The thing is, there are genuine concerns with the stadium for people to have. Instead of articulating them properly we get pensioners making signs, and forum dwellers fabricating nonsense. On 1/15/2018 at 11:21, shootingboots said: I'm becoming fairly ambivalent towards Kingsford. Whilst I don't see it as some sort of disaster for the club like some do, moving so far from the centre of the city isn't preferred. I'm not one who sees redeveloping Pittodrie as an option either though, financially I just can't see how it would be possible. Lack of available land in Aberdeen has meant we've been landed with Kingsford. Other than the redevelop Pittodrie chat, yet to hear of a good location in the city (available). It remains to be seen if Kingsford will progress but if it doesn't do you think AFC will stick to their existing stance of no suitable sites or will the magically produce another one as they have with Kingsford. Claiming for the 3rd (or maybe 4th) time that this is it, the be all and end all. Edited February 1, 2018 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I don't know if it is mentioned on here but what happened to Loirston? Did it just become unsuitable in terms of who owned it and finance or was it something else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, strichener said: It remains to be seen if Kingsford will progress but if it doesn't do you think AFC will stick to their existing stance of no suitable sites or will the magically produce another one as they have with Kingsford. Claiming for the 3rd (or maybe 4th) time that this is it, the be all and end all. Quoting someone on a forum and presenting it as the club's argument... I've already told you the straw man counter is dead and now you're just jumping up and down on his grave. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, flyingscot said: I don't know if it is mentioned on here but what happened to Loirston? Did it just become unsuitable in terms of who owned it and finance or was it something else? The club had an agreement in place to buy the land from the council, and the development had been accepted by the councillors. Then, for one reason or another a key piece of land was denied the club and caused the whole project to be untenable. Between those two events there was a change in council leadership from SNP to Labour (iirc), and the prevailing belief is that 'politix' scuppered the plans. In this instance, all the land is already owned by the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Illgresi said: The club had an agreement in place to buy the land from the council, and the development had been accepted by the councillors. Then, for one reason or another a key piece of land was denied the club and caused the whole project to be untenable. Between those two events there was a change in council leadership from SNP to Labour (iirc), and the prevailing belief is that 'politix' scuppered the plans. In this instance, all the land is already owned by the club. That's interesting. I had looked at the Loirston development when we were doing a neighbouring site at workand it appeared like a good site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Illgresi said: Quoting someone on a forum and presenting it as the club's argument... I've already told you the straw man counter is dead and now you're just jumping up and down on his grave. It is ironic that you are the only one that has used straw men today. I fell rather sorry for you that such is your eagerness to show that anyone that opposes the plans is being completely unreasonable that you make a fool of yourself. Just for clarity the entirety of my post was "407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land." No mention of club, AFC, official etc. etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, strichener said: It is ironic that you are the only one that has used straw men today. I fell rather sorry for you that such is your eagerness to show that anyone that opposes the plans is being completely unreasonable that you make a fool of yourself. Just for clarity the entirety of my post was "407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land." No mention of club, AFC, official etc. etc. I'm not eager to show that anyone who opposes the plan is being unreasonable. I'm eager to show that anyone who is being unreasonable is being unreasonable. You quoted shootingboots in your previous post and implied that his/her statement was representative of the club as a whole. The club has gone to great lengths to show that Kingsford is the only realistic, deliverable site for the new stadium. If you're seriously suggesting there are alternatives then the burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide this information than I'm afraid there's really nothing more to discuss. Edited February 1, 2018 by Illgresi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COYR Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Illgresi said: If you're seriously suggesting there are alternatives then the burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide this information than I'm afraid there's really nothing more to discuss. What proof do you need that there are other alternatives? They've also worked back from the answer 'Kingsford' to show it's the only possible site. Edited February 1, 2018 by COYR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 minute ago, COYR said: What proof do you need that there are other alternatives? Evidence of availability of the land, price of the land, geophysical survey of the land showing its suitability for construction, transportation plans, a rough architectural design, and a total cost estimate. Anything less is just crying into a pillow screaming 'what about the alternatives?!?' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 ...and I thought Cunty was a sanctimonious jackass 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Illgresi said: I'm not eager to show that anyone who opposes the plan is being unreasonable. I'm eager to show that anyone who is being unreasonable is being unreasonable. You quoted shootingboots in your previous post and implied that his/her statement was representative of the club as a whole. The club has gone to great lengths to show that Kingsford is the only realistic, deliverable site for the new stadium. If you're seriously suggesting there are alternatives then the burden of proof is on you. If you can't provide this information than I'm afraid there's really nothing more to discuss. Revisionism at it's best. The post from shootingboots came after your accusations of using straw men. Not withstanding the revisionism, can you explain how I implied shootingboots post was representative of the club as a whole rather than, as was the case, showing that some people believe Kingsford is the only available land. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Illgresi said: Evidence of availability of the land, price of the land, geophysical survey of the land showing its suitability for construction, transportation plans, a rough architectural design, and a total cost estimate. Anything less is just crying into a pillow screaming 'what about the alternatives?!?' Cool! I am sure AFC have all this information available for the sequential selection process that they used for the sites that they ruled out???? Edited February 1, 2018 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, strichener said: Revisionism at it's best. The post from shootingboots came after your accusations of using straw men. Not withstanding the revisionism, can you explain how I implied shootingboots post was representative of the club as a whole rather than, as was the case, showing that some people believe Kingsford is the only available land. You stated " 407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land." The straw man fallacy here is the argument that Kingsford was the only available land. It may well not have been the only available land. It was certainly shown to be the only feasible site. You've created an argument you can win, but completely failed to address the fact that no-one is arguing the points you're making; which is the definition of a straw man fallacy. 10 minutes ago, strichener said: Cool! I am sure AFC have all this information available for the sequential selection process that they used for the sites that they ruled out???? I'm sure they probably addressed each site's merits on the criteria I posted above (amongst many others no doubt). Doubtless almost all of them failed on point two. Edited February 1, 2018 by Illgresi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naegoodinthedark Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Anyone in the area to post pictures of how the construction is coming along? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 This thread's straw man fallacy counter has just exploded. No wonder We’ve now got the presentation of straw man arguments being used as straw man arguments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, strichener said: "407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land." It was this strawman that got me. That 407 acres would never have been used for a stadium, it had residential planning permission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COYR Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 32 minutes ago, Illgresi said: Evidence of availability of the land, price of the land, geophysical survey of the land showing its suitability for construction, transportation plans, a rough architectural design, and a total cost estimate. Anything less is just crying into a pillow screaming 'what about the alternatives?!?' A stadium across the road at King's Links was estimated at £42m in 2009. Rebuilding 3 stands at Pittodrie was estimated at £30m for 12,000 seats, which we've already been through. The more recent King's Links cost estimates they gave when discounting the site as unaffordable, showed the cost due to the conditions of the area as actually only around £1m. Part of Aberdeen council went along with the word of the club and their legal argument that it's up to the business to decide how much space they need. So they're able to discount the available land at King's Links, and anywhere, by saying they need way more than is there. Another part of Aberdeen council, and those that voted against it, argued the club were being inflexible and therefore not complying with the city centre first test, that they should build the stadium where there is space. They also argued land could be allocated and made affordable through the LDP, rather than steamrolling it through a planning application, such as the swathes of land pictured. Could have even tied it in with turning the shitey pitches into a training centre in an area that needs it a la Man City, rather than the bizarre Man City for rich locals that we're doing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Grimes Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 26 minutes ago, naegoodinthedark said: Anyone in the area to post pictures of how the construction is coming along? Nothing yet but I’m getting some practice in terrorising the residents of Westhill by shiteing in folks gardens and having running battles with Waitrose customers 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.