Edinburghdon

Identifying the possibility of using Kings Links is a world away from being "offered" the land. If you can't see that then there's really no point engaging with you any more... Yes Kings Links was identified as a potential option, not an "ideal" location. It's also been discussed at length why it's not a feasible option, as far as I can tell it didnt include training facilities either. Regarding ASV, do you really think indoor only facilities is suitable for a professional club? Great for poor weather I'll admit but it's required in addition to proper grass pitches, not instead of. Why would the club get involved with the ASV when there was never any plans to provide the type of facilities required? So back to this offer... anything to back up your claim? or just the fact that it was identified as a potential site? Was the golf course/driving range consulted before the council offered the land?

Ok, so it's been widely reported that the club has tried to have a link up with the universities with regards to training facilities, do you have any proof the club "decided not to progress" solely due to Kingsford (or Loriston before that) rather than perhaps no mutually beneficial arrangement being found? Or are you assuming that because the plans never came to fruition its because of a real desire to move to kingsford? (even though the Uni discussions were long before Kingsford was ever suggested from memory...) http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/training-ground-blow-aberdeen-forced-6041888 https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/aberdeen-fc/pitching-into-the-main-job-in-hand/ (excuse the DR link!) Now why would they even start site prep works if they had no intention of following through? (ignoring the fact that this was before Kingsford was ever on the table, and from memory Loriston had already been ruled out by this point) You may have a better memory than me (and google didnt throw anything up either) but has the club ever discussed training facilities at kings links with the universities? The links above are for Balgownie which seems to be the furthest we've ever managed to get with discussions on a tie in. I'm sure you'll be able to enlighten us all though... You've still not mentioned what land the club have been "offered" though... are you ever going to answer the question or can we assume it's pure fabrication?

Nail. On. The. Head.

Agree not having community use of the facilities on match days isn't ideal, but you only need to see how busy the likes of goals etc are weekday evenings to see how much use proper floodlit pitches would get. I know for a fact the 5's we play at goals would shift out there as it's right on the doorstep for all the players after work. I'm also guessing the benefit to opening the gym to the community would be for casual users rather than having to pay membership fees. Again that's just a guess. You're right though it's not an amazing offering to the community but it's still something. Having the AFCCT and meeting rooms etc for use by community groups also adds to it. I'd disagree with Manc about it being large due to community use, it doesn't seem any bigger or more extravagant than the likes of hearts facilities which I'd imagine is a good bench mark. As far as moving out of the community goes, I do get it... but I honestly think they're proposing this as there's no better alternative. For me kings links doesn't work on a financial perspective nor offering the same level of facilities as kingsford would. Going on the points raised on traffic assessments too I reckon it'd be almost impossible to get it passed on that front too given the issues raised at kingsford despite much better road infrastructure (admittedly being able to walk etc helps a bit). Guess it comes down to it definitely not being perfect but probably as good as we can reasonably expect unfortunately.

How are you getting on with letting us know about the area of land the club have been "offered" for the training facilities and stadium within the city centre?

Fair enough, but we aren't limited to the number of buses currently in the city though are we? That's something that can (and will) change as the demand does. Of course the training facilities will cost money to maintain, everything does but the proposed facilities is no more than what the likes of hearts and hibs have had available to them for years, is that not an indication that they're not as excessive as you're claiming? They're also much more modest than the likes of Celtic and Rangers training facilities. Of course there's future in improved access from the shire, to suggest otherwise really downplays our support from that areas. Appreciate less people can walk there but with that can be offset with improved public transport plans which you refuse to awknowledge is possible. In the absence of any suitable (and realistic) location in the centre what else can be done?

So because you can't see where the buses are coming from it's impossible is it? I fail to see what point you're making about clubs with 40,000 season ticket holders, I really don't think there's anything excessive about the training facilities planned and really struggle to understand why you think they're so excessive . It all seems reasonable for a club or our size and has the added benefit of being able to use the facilities for the community and AFCCT, which can't be a bad thing. And I suspect there will be more than a few take advantage of the bars near the stadium, folk will do whatever's most conveniently, a fair number of that could well find heading out early easiest. Not denying buses run from pubs will be anything but in the 100's, it's an alternative to the situation you've laid out and one that's been mentioned already as realistic. I wondered when it would come to Milne too, there's more people behind this than Milne, the same people that have lead to the club being better run than it has been for years. There's no denying the plans need improvement, which many people have already pointed out to you, that's not to say suitable improvement isn't possible. You also seem determined to not take in the many valid points raised as to why the situation isn't nearly as bad as you're making out, which is puzzling...

So you really can't see why a business who operate 20% of all bus routes in the country and clearly know how to run effective bus routes wouldn't be interested in taking advantage of increased demand and put on new routes? Or that the club will do as they've said and organise shuttles from park and rides over the city? You really can't see why either would be thought of as a good idea? McInnes and the club in general have spoken about the lack of proper fit for purpose dedicated facilities for years. It's really naive to think it's just a pitch and a pavilion... they're in use sometimes twice a day, most modern facilities include catering, or office space, gym space etc. Why should the club half arse the plans and leave themselves short of facilities they really need when there's the opportunity to get something that ticks all boxes? Pretty much nails it for me There's no reason why the likes of cove cults, bucksburn etc has to be any harder to get to kingsford IF THE RIGHT LINKS ARE PUT IN PLACE. You can base it on current links to make things look worse than they are but that's assuming there will be no improvement in the public transport links despite there clearly being the demand if the stadium goes ahead. Of course lots of people go out in town before the game just now, there's no reason that has to stop, it just means it'll change a bit. But don't you think bars in westhills & kingswells will be used by some as an alternative? Or that the traditional pubs running supports buses as mentioned previously will help things? I get it some people the change, it doesn't mean change is always as awful as you're making out. Maybe, just maybe the site is 4 times as big as that's what is needed to include the required training facilities and car parking? Perhaps when it comes to what training facilities are actually needed the club are best place to decide what is excessive and what isn't, don't you think? The size of the site also allows the club to provide a fan zone which will increase the match day experience, something which has been needed at pittodrie for years.

How about any sensible solution that is even slightly efficient? Like multiple trips with buses? They could even serve other routes during the match. They don't need to be sitting around doing nothing though! Ok so £3.25 is the furthest return, who's to say football specials won't be priced similarly? You're falling into the trap of taking an unknown and assuming the worst case. The whole point of getting training facilities is making sure they're fit for purpose? Are you really suggesting they should just scrape together something that's not fit for purpose and no better than the shocking facilities they currently have?!

Why would the buses have to stop for hours then send them back? That would be mad... do know for sure they haven't even discussed additional routes? Again that would seem to go against any kind of logic when it has the potential to make the bus companies a significant amount of money? Just surprises me that would be the case! Appreciate £6 mounts up but surely a significant number of people from within the city already spend that money on buses seeing as it's not possible to walk from everywhere in Aberdeen to pittodrie? Of course there's significant planning issues for adequate training facilities, it would have to be more than a couple of pitches...it's professional facilities we are talking about not an open patch of grass for a kick about. That's before factoring in changing, catering and other fitness/physio facilities. Fair enough if the 3 per car will be enforced for the clubs parking, the park and ride and any businesses car parks, I geneuinely cant see that being enforceable or even reasonable. There's space to park along the roads at the business parks too which will help although appreciate not by much. At the end of the day it just comes back to what I've said before... if they sort the TA out, make buses as convenient as possible then there will be enough parking & park and ride facilities for this to work. Which in the complete absence of a viable alternative is the best I reckon we can hope for.

Don't think anyone's claimed it's perfect, the potential for improvement is there though!

There's nothing to say union street has to be a meeting point for everyone though is there? Should there be additional routes put on to meet demand there's nothing stopping people travelling directly from dyce etc. Fair enough a lot of buses are required but we're lucky to have a rather large and successful bus company in the city, do you really think additional buses are a show stopper? The key is securing additional routes and additional buses during peak times. I'll agree taking the bus isn't a great experience. But neither is walking in the pissing rain... it's hardly a terrible journey. I remember when I lived in Edinburgh, getting a bus across town to go to Easter road etc to see aberdeen took a bit of time and was often really busy for a large part of the journey but it wasn't too bad, with the right planning in place it's an inconvenience rather than a nightmare. It's hardly a significant cost either... Do you know they've not proposed this? Do you genuinely believe the bus companies won't put on additional buses or routes if there's demand? I'm also sure I've read various bars in town have looked at running buses directly from bars, sure the pittodrie bar etc were mentioned. All would reduce reliance on cars, normal bus routes etc. Taken up with other things such as? The club have already made a big point about the corporate facilities being greatly enhanced in both design and quantity, I don't see anything in the plans to suggest otherwise, apologies if I've missed something though... So already it's obvious buying/relocating the driving range is going to be expensive even before the other factors previously mentioned are taken into account? No idea about maintaining the site at kingsford but it stands to reason that maintaining 1 site is cheaper than 2. I'd imagine it's because there's a planning process to follow, it'd be madness to buy land somewhere without knowing we can get planning. Suspect the club are realistic enough to realise having a separate site will increase costs massively. viously mentioned are taken into account? Ah ok, I'd genuinely missed that when I read the application documents, does it account for the smaller amount of on dteeet marking in the industrial estates? Or the use of the park and ride and shuttles from there? Because both would reduce reliance on the clubs parking. Same goes for the potential for agreements with other companies or prime 4 car parks in westhill? Small gains but it'll all improve things. viously mentioned are taken into account? Good point, I'll give you that one... I'd question 35 mins based on the last time I took the bus to westhill but I guess it can be close to that to westhill, don't agree about it taking that long to reach the dual carriageway. . It'd be less for football specials though for what it's worth.

Welcome back! Have I missed the childish virtual arguments? Must have been hidden in amongst all the genuine points and attempts to debate with you... same goes for saying you're not a dons fan. As far as I can tell there's only really been one person getting nippy, or gone into a sulk about any points raised. You might want to clear your head and read through the posts again as if anyone got nippy or gone in a huff due to points being challenged (with many considered and valid points ) it's been you. There's been various other posters on here that have raised negative points about the plan such as jess and they've been discussed pretty well on both sides from what I can see. to say anyone with an differing opinion is met with people being nippy is quite frankly bollocks. No offence or anything... For what it's worth though it's already been pointed out that it is accessible by car, foot and bike... the scale of that accessibility isn't ideal but to say it's not accessible is untrue. You say people don't appreciate that having land and needing a stadium Isn't reason to just build it. Read the thread again because I don't think anyone posting about this seriously does not know there's a process to be followed. There's been some really considered points put to you in this thread and they've all been ignored before your toys went out the pram. As Manc mentioned there's a few on here with first hand knowledge of the process relating to stadia too. How are you getting on with letting us all know what land the club have been offered by the way? I've been on the edge of my seat for days now. Or does throwing your toys out of the pram the second anyone responds in a reasonable way to your points say it all?

It wouldn't stop you going to a bar before the game though would it? The people in the city centre can still go to the same bars as before the only difference is having to take a bus rather than walk to the game, admittedly it'd mean leaving earlier but it certainly doesnt stop it completely. It also doesn't stop people using the existing bars in Westhill/Kingswells nor the planned fan bar. That's before the possibility of additional bars opening in the area once the demand is there (bit of an assumption but not a huge stretch of the imagination). You're also basing the number of buses required on current routes, do you really think that additional routes from elsewhere in the city wont be put on once there's a demand for it? The bus companies arent stupid, if there's a demand for routes and it'll make them money then they'll soon provide additional routes. It's naive to think otherwise. Again I totally get it'll be a change to current habits, one which may not be as convenient but i really don't think its the disaster some are making out. It'll also be more convenient for just as many from other areas. No idea why the kingswells park and ride isnt used currently, I know other park and rides are used fairly regularly though so it is something that works well. There's no reason this cant work on a larger scale once it is required. Maybe so, but there's more to the hospitality than just the boxes, I'm fairly certain when you compare the boxes/lounges at pittodrie to the boxes/lounges at kingsford you'll see there's a big increase and kingsford has been designed in a way to improve efficiency with regards to hospitality catering etc. Do you have any info on the cost of that land? Or the difference taking into account the additional site preparation required as mentioned by Tom_widdows? Or buying/relocating the driving range? Is the site at kings links also big enough for training facilities too? If not you'll be looking at additional cost of buying more land, site prep etc. Your £4 million estimate soon increases massively. I do agree it'd be a preferable site if it was a. possible and b. cost effective. I can't say I've seen any evidence of that so far though... If there's a TA been done to show all this and includes the volume of people using it with regards to a stadium then fair enough, I'd be amazed if it passes given the time taken to clear traffic after games. With it being a new assessment you cant just get away with saying it'll be no worse than currently, which is pretty bad any time we have a decent sized crowd. I may have missed it but where has it been said that people need to have 3 in their car in order to drive to the site? Cant really see that being enforceable given the club wont control all parking options. Fair enough if it is going to be an enforced rule, I agree that'd be a ballache. Don't get me wrong, some people may well decide its too inconvenient getting to the stadium (pretty sure the inconvenience is being exaggerated though but that's just my opinion. No idea about kingswells but I know for a fact the park and rides elsewhere are used by fans outwith the city to park at and get the bus to the stadium, it seems to work well and the buses seem pretty quick and regular. One final point, whats so different in taking a bus at capacity from union street to kingsford and taking a bus at capacity from king street to union street/further? Not a lot... The buses are frequently at capacity (or close to it) on route back to the city centre after games. all you're doing is adding a bit to the journey, which given half the journey will be dual carriageway rather than a gridlocked King Street will offset the increased distance somewhat I'd imagine.

It'll be a change to the usual habits for some, that's not to say people won't adapt. At the end of the day getting on a bus for what's not exactly a huge journey isn't too bad, it's 6 miles not 60. I think they've made it clear that significantly increased corporate facilities, plus enhanced facilities in the fan zone will provide the increased revenue. I don't think anyone expects this to be done without a mortgage of some sort though. I guess they've done that as they're planning to use the kingswells park and ride as a hub for shuttle buses. There's still years to make sure there are enough buses too. I also don't think there's any logic in basing concerns on what bus routes there are currently, of course there's not going to be services from all over the city just now if there's no not the demand. I sort of get what you mean about basing the buses on 100% capacity but on the other hand, why would you assume you'll be running partly empty buses. Guess it's a tough one to plan. Suspect early engagement with the various bus companies is key, they'll know better than most on running buses given the size and successfulness of the companies. I seriously doubt AFC would plan to move if it was obviously doomed to fail, it's in their interests to make this work, with a bit of work I'm sure it can. There's more dedicated parking than we currently have, there's also nothing to say the club can't put further deals in place for the use of more car parks. The club have had years to ensure they're prepared for the move, it could be said they should be more prepared and that's not entirely unfair but with a bit of work the plans can and (if it's approved) probably will work, it'll take some getting used to but change isn't always a bad thing. I'd argue it'll make it easier to get there for as many as it makes it harder for too, which seems to be being ingnored. I'd be amazed if buying a pretty successful business (or relocating it), buying significant areas of land in the city and rerouting a road would only add £4 million onto the cost, I'd be keen to see where that number came from. I'd also be keen to get your thoughts on how you'd expect the transport assessment to turn out as anything but significantly worse than the kingsford one given the transport links? If the TA for kingsford is being ripped apart despite heavy use of park and rides plus 2 dual carriageways to provide good access and egress I can only Imagine how bad it'd be without the quality of roads or amount of parking. Because we are moving it'd have to be a new TA too so saying it won't be any worse than before won't cut it. It's also naive to think kings links would lead to permanent increases to attendance given nothing seems to help increase attendances in the current location, same goes for assuming theee will definitely be a decrease at kingsford given it'll make it easier for a large number of our support (admittedly offset with fans in the city centre having a slightly harder journey) Also, am I wrong in remembering that the original study into kings links mentioned a lot more site preparation is required due to the make up of the soil?

Exactly! Pretty much beat me to it there... I'd also repeat that if a transport assessment cant be made to work based on 2 x dual carriageways and the promise of greatly increased bus routes does anyone really think a transport assessment based on Kings Links would be anything but significantly worse? As much as I'd love to stay as close to the existing site as possible I cant see it working, suspect Pittodrie is seen as a good site because people are used to it, in reality even it has some pretty big drawbacks. I totally agree that nowhere near as many people will be able to walk there, which isnt ideal but is hopping on a bus from wherever in the city centre they're run from (or any of the park and rides around aberdeen, as is done currently as well) that much hassle? I'd not put too much (or any) concern into current bus routes as there's next to no reason to head out that way currently anyway, it'd be silly to assume additional routes arent going to be put on when the demand is there.

Aye, you'd think it'd be in the clubs best interests, whuchcbus why I'm sure they've looked at the options, it'd be insanity not to.

You had a point about the Transport assessment (even though any prospect for improvement was ignored) but the later posts were nonsense and this last one just shows how much bollocks you're talking with regards to alternative sites etc. Enjoy wondering around a housing development in 15 years time

I guess this: Means any "offer" of land within the city was limited only to inside his own head. You could well be right, however I'm sure Yule has mentioned at the exhibitions etc that a portion of ticket revenue will be going towards transport costs, cant remember when it was said though.

I presume you've got proof the council have "offered" land within the city? Sure you'll be able to provide that fairly easily if that's the case. Unless it's nonsense or rumour that is... Same goes with the cost of upkeep... There's also a difference in running something down and spending the bare minimum to keep it running. Doing anything but the minimum would be madness when it wouldn't change the fact the stadium needs replacing in the near future. Guess it depends whether you see it like that or if you decide it's all a conspiracy to move of course. *edit* just read your point about the floodlights. That tells me all I need to know if you genuinely believe that was intentional you need help.

I don't think anyone would claim the transport assessment is perfect, it seems people fully appreciate it's been assessed and there's some major negatives to it (but thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious, gold star for you) the fact is though that there is time to improve them and I'm sure the club can and will do that. Whether it's enough to get the plans to pass remains to be seen I guess, certainly wouldn't say it's dead in the water yet when there's still 3 months before d day. Saying people have been travelling to/from pittodrie for years and accepting traffic takes time to clear isn't really acceptable, should pittodrie be flattened and rebuilt then the same traffic assessment will be required, if you think you'll get a positive transport assessment for a non existent city centre location when the one for a site positioned beside 2 dual carriageways is a "failure" then your heads in the clouds. Also, with regards to Kingsford, having driven that road for years in rush hour traffic (which based on the number of commuters isn't a million miles from the numbers going to the stadium) the road copes fine, there's traffic aye but it's hardly hours of gridlock. Adding the AWPR will only help things with regards to people coming from outwith the city centre. Fair play to the kingsford people, they've done their homework and grasped onto anything and everything raised to the transport assessment. A lot of their arguments are nonsense and the way they've handled the objection process (and how theyve spoken to people to have told them they've no intention of filling in their daft tick box forms) has been terrible. But fair play to them being able to read the TA and repeat its findings. I can't remember anyone from the club mentioning NIMBY's either, so that criticism is wide of the mark. I reckon your last line shows your true colours there, seem to be taking pleasure in finding faults with the planning and Yules role in it, which is puzzling to say the least. Well done keeping up the condescending tone though, thought you'd struggle maintaining that...

Good first half, hopefully turn up the pressure in the second half. Battering Italy today would help our chances of climbing the world rankings and getting a favourable World Cup draw massively

No, of course there's not a cast iron reason that they have to be on the same site. It makes sense to have them on site though both operationally and financially. Having them elsewhere means buying another piece of land (admittedly offset by requiring less land for the stadium) but also means 2 applications, 2 designs, clearing and preparing 2 sites etc, doubling up on all that must increase the costs hugely. Unless it's absolutely unavoidable it'd be mad not to have a combined site. It's just common sense

I'd imagine the transport assessment for kings links would be equally bad if not worse than kingsford given it's a huge amount of traffic to route through already busy roads. Doubt that'd pass nowadays.

Aye sorry I probably didn't put the transport links bit very well, pittodrie is easy to get to, not denying that at all but the traffic in general after the game is a nightmare. Any decent size crowd and king street etc is gridlocked for a significant period of time. I get what you're saying about it being a bit far out but I can't really see anywhere else within the city and if positioning it beside the AWPR junction gives us decent enough access from all directions to tick as many boxes as possible I personally don't mind the location. Far from perfect but it'll do anyway. As far as identity goes, you're right it is a bit soulless just now, the flip side is it's a blank canvas to create something new in the long term.