Tree

So how does Duncan suggest the club pays for 5 f/t coaches (the 6th is a paid player) required by Project Brave from less than £100k?

Three poor goals to lose however the game showed up our likely Achilles Heel in lack of cutting edge up front. Whilst Jordan scored one he also missed three other decent chances including the last kick (or sclaff) of the game. Others missed chances of course.

The negative impact of Project Brave was well trailed prior to its introduction and whilst worthy in what it is trying to achieve the requirement for clubs to have in effect six full-time employees as a minimum requirement is not sustainable in relation to the income levels in the Scottish game (as well as Academy Director and access to various facilities, etc). We have mitigated this effect to an extent, e.g.by using Carlo as one of the coaches for example, however there has also been a significant number of casulaties along the way due to background politics. A number of clubs have taken the view to in effect pull the plug on youth development. A proposal was made a year ago to try and move the development side into a Foundation however things have gone silent on progress towards this (though if the rumours about the Club under our departed CE requiring the Devlopment Foundation to pay the club for use of IP, training facilities, etc were true then this would partly explain why this has not got off the ground). Brave also does not provide a path for players over the age of 18. This is why we have looked to use Fort William as a vehicle for players. If Alan Savage is to get involved I suspect that youth will be part of the equation as he is passionate about this side of things (obviously bankrolling in effect the Clach Youth side).

Richard Hastings????

Are you suggesting that in spite of the histrionics above the club are actually on top of things and this is a non-story 😴

He already is a shareholder so doesn't have to return

Shouldn't be an issue but the fact is that there was an issue!

Thanks for feedback DD.

Interesting that Away fans are paying less than ICT fans for the same stand!

Over 20 years?? Only started placing away fans in this area last season. Issue is bigger than a few people standing up and on three occasions there has almost been trouble. MJ is correct about right to feel safe and the club are not on top of this.

Yet again there was almost trouble due to siting the away fans in the middle of home fans in the main stand without adequate stewarding. This is the third time that this has happened, at least in which I have observed. The away fans refused to sit and stood along the passageway. After asking them to sit the stewards and club management gave up. After ejections of home fans for less in previous seasons this is bewildering and indeed in breach of the safety guidelines under which we are granted a certificate. If we don’t want to open the south stand why are the away fans not placed in the west corner of the north stand where they can be segregated more easily? As well as Jim K did in keeping the Caley and Morton fan apart there is insufficient stewards to stop things kicking off and as before this is now the third time that trouble has almost happened.

Ah yeah. Your missing the point. We have to select one of our better players who is playing well and randomly criticise them. It’s McCart this week and next week it will be Rigders for saving penalties but not holding the ball 🤪

Not routinely though if issues are identified during the Stage 3 Assessment there may be a further public consultation (generally when base information from Stage 2 is found to be flawed and to prevent contestable aspects if the project goes to PLI). As an affected party, ongoing consultation with the club is likely particularly in this instance as the temporary measures to allow construction are likely to have an effect on game traffic and pedestrian flows

DD/RIG The consultation period closed on 9th August so time is quite important. Representation may have been made by others already however. TS may view the positive benefit in having a NMU underpass in any event and the road flow modelling may indicate that this is beneficial during match days to avoid significant negative impact though signalised crossings. The AWPR/A944 Interchange has been pre-ducted during the construction to allow restrospective installation of traffic lights when the Aberdeen Stadium is completed by ACC. The design parameters for the interchange are however flawed as the frequency of accidents and demerge tail backs show. In theory everyone is getting a bus to the new AFC stadium (ahem) so footway capacity through the slips is of less concern!

Public exhibitions were held last June on the proposals which are now progressing through the Stage 3 detailed design stage in advance of progressing draft orders. Further information is available at the link below https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/exhibition-materials-june-2019-a9a82-longman-junction-improvement-scheme/ Jacobs in preparing the scheme to date make reference to further discussions regarding Non-motorised User (NMU) provision which is a couched reference to the potential for provision of an underpass for aiding access to the Stadium. It is incumbant on the club and public in general to make representations to TS during the current consultation stage as to the specific requirement for this (on the basis of pedestrian safety avoiding the need for specific crossing point on the merge and demerge). The greater the level of representation will provide basis for inclusion within the final Stage 3 design and during the RSA1/2 assessment.