STFU

WTF you smoking?

I agree with many things you've posted, dougal, but your comments on this thread are nothing but bigoted nonsense, and have no place on here or anywhere.

So having risen as far as you believe the club is capable, you find it acceptable that we now slide back to....where? It's the desire of those running the club who seem to have delusions of grandeur, not the majority of fans. It is they who openly admit that they are running the club in a manner that requires Premier League income. It is those egos that are chasing ill thought out money making schemes to support that (all the while alienating fans and local businesses) while we play in the Championship, and in doing so are threatening the club's very existence.

We're bleeding like a stuck pig, but we're not dead yet and Scot Gardiner is hatching a plan to save us. What's not to be upbeat about?

On the plus side, Ferguson can't being on 3 extra defenders to sit in after we go a goal up.

...and there's more creativity and ability in Mckay and Doran than the rest of the squad combined.

I'd like to see us come out flying, run Arbroath ragged and then bring in Mckay, Doran and Samuels to exploit tired opposition. We're almost at the nothing to lose stage, and I'd rather see us going down fighting than whimpering.

Alan Savage waiting in the wings to buy the club for a quid.

Or it gets passed back to planning with instructions that the rest attend a site visit before another vote. Kicking the decision further down the road.

The 30th anniversary was last week.

The club are acting as rent-a-stooge. ILI knew they'd need an angle to get around the use of protected green space and the club is being used to play the "won't someone think of the children" card to add pressure for approval. Messrs Cameron and Sutherland would have known the same. Donating a worthless bit of land (without planning consent) to the club that could potentially be turned into a 7 figure windfall makes some sense if they want any chance of getting back money they've loaned. If successful, it also sets a precedent for development on the rest of the old golf course.

Ferguson doesn't strike me as the type of manager who'd put up with a coach that wasn't doing what was expected of him.

Whatever it is, it's too much. I wouldn't even have him at the club if he was paying us to be there.

Hopefully it's successful or we've just thrown away another couple of grand.

And doesn't have to look very hard.

Also. We have 3 property developers on our board of directors with many decades of planning experience between them. Not sure that allows us much room to play the "we needed to rely on external parties" excuse.

If the question is 'Could the club have been reasonably expected to have done more?', then for me the answer yes. I was highlighting the fact that there was an option for the club to have the decision makers look over their submission ahead of time. This would have allowed them to deal with some of the concerns/objections raised in a more timely fashion and might have even avoided the situation that has now arisen. From my following of what's happened, nobody with the planning dept has objected to anything (it's not their place to do so). What they have done is highlighted areas where the proposal does not meet planning requirements. You'll also get no argument from me that the last planning meeting was a shambles. Having realised that only 5 of the planning committee were eligible to vote the chair should have not allowed it and immediately referred it to full council for a decision. By allowing it and then asking for it to be referred, especially given how he voted, the chair has opened himself and his peers up to accusations of foul play. People keep saying that all concerns and objections were met, but that is also not the case. The loss of protected green land was not satisfactorily addressed, which is why it was still recommended for rejection. There were also still a number of conditions to be attached to address remaining concerns on other aspects and it's not certain all of these can/will be met. Even of it is accepted at full council, there's no guarantee the club gets a pay day. Conveniently they will have created enough of a shitstorm to then blame it on delays and everyone else messing them around. As I said at the start of this post, they refused an option which could easily have expedited things.

Definitely no malice, but undoubtedly a high foot. I don't think the rules even require contact to be made to justify a card in such a situation. That's why an appeal would be a waste of time and money. Looking at the conceded penalty as well, and it's not clear if there was any contact. If there was, it was minimal. Unfortunately, we've twice given the ref a decision to make when we maybe didn't have to, and when you do that there's always a chance it goes against you.

At the original meeting it was pointed out that the club had refused to take up the offer of pre-submission advice from the planning dept.

After watching the highlights, I don't think we should waste money we don't have appealing the red card.

Isn't it amazing how the club always have someone or something between themselves and accountability when things go teets up?

Sadly, he's sounding more and more like Robbo with every interview. It would be good if the interviewer could ask something like "Do you think the tactics were right?", or even prompt an explanation for substitutions.

I think you may have misread my post because your response makes no sense to me.

Then maybe the smart decision would have been for the club to have gone for a housing development instead of battery storage.

Planning policy is also that you don't build on green space, and you certainly don't put industrial use on green spaces.