rocket_scientist Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 I can assure you it is not that simple. 16 thousand fans every couple of weeks with little hospitality would bring in less revenue than 12 thousand fans plus a lot of hospitality, fans bar etc. It is not just match days the facilities can be rented out for money either. The ability to bring in money every day of the week is a big part of running a successful club nowadays. You seem determined to ignore my main point? All you're spelling out is what everybody knows. Where does the quality of the football fit in your view? Quote
KingswellsRed Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 You seem determined to ignore my main point? All you're spelling out is what everybody knows. Where does the quality of the football fit in your view? The quality of football is much more likely to be higher if the club are bringing in much more revenue. The same thing that is happening at the moment where we can spend more on and have a better team than Hearts. I have seen mentions on other sites of the club estimating the new stadium will bring in an extra 150k per home game. Quote
OxfordDon Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 My understanding is also that the new stadium will generate a lot more revenue for the club, leading to a better team on the pitch hopefully. I saw mention of an extra £150k per home game being generated compared to the current Pittodrie but that may not be accurate so don't quote me! The thing that generates additional revenue is additional customers, more fans. What attracts more fans is a good product. Over 20 years ago, as 2IC to then chairman Ian Donald, Stewrat Milne promised that the product should always be the priority. This is how you get a good product: - 1. Recruit a good manager 2. He recruits good players 3. Players and manager work towards success Milne has never recruited a good manager and football was never his priority. So it's no surprise that we've never been close to realising potential let alone being successful for over two whole decades now. It's like his long term agenda for relocation means he can put the product on hold and this is a lie. Delayed gratification and deferring anything resembling success on the field is not dependent primarily on the stadium. It comes with focusing on the football. (extended political tangent removed) It is not as simple as that these days. You need the facilities in order to make good money from home games. Hearts are selling out most home games but because Tynecastle is basically 3 soon to be 4 sheds or bus shelters with little hospitality facilities their turnover is far less than ours. Even when their new stand goes up, they will still have less facilities than the current Pittodrie and far less than our proposed new stadium. The opportunity to increase our revenue with this new stadium is massive and should put us ahead of the likes of the Edinburgh clubs for years I can assure you that it is as simple as more customers = more revenue. You took one line from my post. I also said that it wasn't PRIMARILY stadium-dependent. Of course improved facilities will attract more customers and everything i.e. commercial sponsorship that goes with this. But the product is all important, which was the main thrust of my post. Sorry, but i had to nest this lot so i could read the argument. Anyway, RS i get your argument that the stadium shouldn't be used as an excuse to put improvement of the team on hold in the meantime (and i also agree that the product on the pitch is the whole point of the club), but i don't think that's happening. Aberdeen as a team has improved massively in the last 5 years, as have our crowds up to a threshold. which leads to my second point of: The fans. The new stadium is quite clearly a long term plan, and i think the board have quite rightly acknowledged that there is an upper limit of how many fans Aberdeen is actually going to attract week in week out. More fans = more money, yes, but i would argue that historically the attendance figures have shown that there is a definite limit to how many folk will come and watch each week, regardless of how well the team does. This is because we are a finite population across a specific geographical area, and a fairly constant percentage of them will never come every week or, shockingly, never be interested in football at all. And before anyone mentions the League Cup final and "but where are the 45K?", i'd say that number represents something closer to the TOTAL number of fans that turn up across the weeks, plus emigrants like me that can't trek back up to Aberdeen just to watch someone kick a bit of leather and have to save it for the one-offs. If we've hit our upper limit of fans, then it seems sensible to try and generate new revenue streams, and the new stadium is quite clearly planned around that whilst accommodating our maximum weekly fanbase. Product is all-important, but i don't see any evidence that the stadium is anything but sensible for improving said product in the long term, or that it is hampering improvement in the short term. TL:DR version: fans = money AND money = product improvement BUT number fans = maximum new stadium = more money AND more money = product improvement later BUT new stadium DOESNOT = no product improvement now (this site doen't like mathematical symbols) Quote
rocket_scientist Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 The quality of football is much more likely to be higher if the club are bringing in much more revenue. The same thing that is happening at the moment where we can spend more on and have a better team than Hearts. I have seen mentions on other sites of the club estimating the new stadium will bring in an extra 150k per home game. It is indeed chicken and egg with regards to the revenue v. football quality, or it should be ("more likely") as you say. More of one should mean more of the other, whichever comes first. They should be mutually-dependent but as we've seen in our own history, money was much less influential on our past success than good product management. Have a shite fitba team in a shiny new stadium and nae cunt will be there to see it. Our football team hasn't been able to challenge for the major honours for the whole time Milne has been involved. The only reason our turnover spikes happened - including one of the Calderwood years, £12.2m if I recall) - was European football. Not doing anything in Europe of course, just simply being in it, due to the disproportionate rewards available. Quote
KingswellsRed Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 It is indeed chicken and egg with regards to the revenue v. football quality, or it should be ("more likely") as you say. More of one should mean more of the other, whichever comes first. They should be mutually-dependent but as we've seen in our own history, money was much less influential on our past success than good product management. Have a shite fitba team in a shiny new stadium and nae cunt will be there to see it. Our football team hasn't been able to challenge for the major honours for the whole time Milne has been involved. The only reason our turnover spikes happened - including one of the Calderwood years, £12.2m if I recall) - was European football. Not doing anything in Europe of course, just simply being in it, due to the disproportionate rewards available. The hope is that the new stadium will attract larger attendances for the first season anyway which will hopefully give us increased revenue to put a good team on the park. Yes, the turnover will be better if we have a good season but having the facilities in place to make money are very much necessary to take advantage of good seasons. By the way, I have no interest in attending hospitality, boxes etc myself and would far rather be out in a standing section (hopefully there is one) but I recognise the need for it. Quote
WeegieRed Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 Because if you offered folks an 18,000 seater at Pittodrie or a circa 20,000 seater at Kingsford, I'm absolutely certain the former would get the support. Looks like you'll get the chance to find out. The @aberdeenstadium twitter obviously reads this forum - they've put it to a poll. Quote
Edinburghdon Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 Looks like you'll get the chance to find out. The @aberdeenstadium twitter obviously reads this forum - they've put it to a poll. Where has the 18,000 come from? If it was possible then great, suspect those options are deliberately close together though... Quote
manc_don Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 Where has the 18,000 come from? If it was possible then great, suspect those options are deliberately close together though... Seems like a convenient number plucked from thin air and undeliverable. Quote
Edinburghdon Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 Seems like a convenient number plucked from thin air and undeliverable. How do I vote for a 50,000 seater stadium with a removable roof at pittodrie? Quote
OxfordDon Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 I want a 1 seater stadium with a comfy armchair and a butler. Sod the rest of you Quote
RicoS321 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Posted January 23, 2017 Looks like you'll get the chance to find out. The @aberdeenstadium twitter obviously reads this forum - they've put it to a poll. Given I plucked the 18K out of the air for sake of argument (if it was read from here, which I doubt), I doubt anyone will vote for it. I wouldn't even vote for it. Why would anyone vote for a stadium without drawings that could be unfeasible and isn't being proposed over one with drawings that is fully designed and in for planning? If we were presented with and 18K design in the existing site, that'd be an entirely different story obviously. The argument from me is we're not seeing evidence. I want to see the diagram of the 12.5K (out of interest, do any of the qualified folks think it would be possible to return an accurate figure without a diagram?), what assumptions were used for things like moving the mainer toward the car park and the maximum possible height of the South stand allowed so as not to block light out from the flats (and any possible mitigations of that - glass/perspex in part or whatever). I want to see that the club made every possible effort to remain at Pittodrie and give the fans a choice and that there was no pre-conceived agenda and a consultation with a pre-determined outcome. As Slim says, there was a 600K consultation (I thought it was 400K, but I think he's right). All I remember seeing from this was a series of bullet points. Quote
tom_widdows Posted January 29, 2017 Report Posted January 29, 2017 Currently 1243 documents relating to the Planning Applicaiton 169 Documents actually about the stadium 1074 Public comments (Objections or Support). The most recent support comes from a 'Mr Russell Anderson' Quick scan seems to show more support than objections but how many of either are actually valid is anyones guess (Planning Officer will need a holiday after this one) Consultee comments to date - Scottish Natural Heritage - Seem OK with it provided conditions stated in various documents about protecting/ relocating animal/ Insect habitats are carried out Aberdeen Council Environmental Health - No objections but state site has a history of 'landfilling' so will expect a contamination survey before it goes further. Aberdeen Council Waste Services - Make sure there are enough bins Aberdeen Council Archaeology - No issues BP - No issues as long as you don't mess up our pipelines. Determination Deadline is supposedly 10th May 2017 however its current status is 'awaiting decision' even though the consultation deadline is not until February 17th. I have a housing project in Glasgow that has been 'pending consideration' for 2 years! Quote
Garlogie_Granite Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Brilliant, in the DR today, Mike Rumbles refused to meet with AFC. Objects to the new development without doing his job first. What a fucking lazy bastard MSP Quote
RicoS321 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Brilliant, in the DR today, Mike Rumbles refused to meet with AFC. Objects to the new development without doing his job first. What a fucking lazy bastard MSP Surely his job is to represent his constituents and this is just political prudence? It's a rock and a hard place for him really, isn't it? The residents don't want anything build, no compromises, so there's nothing for him to discuss with AFC. It'll go through regardless of his opinion, so why ingratiate himself to the club rather than the people who vote for him? It's not laziness, just that there is nothing for him to discuss. If the club get permission, then it would make sense for him to have a meeting to discuss parking and so forth. He's probably a dick like, but that's neither here nor there. Or you could just not read the Daily Record, that would help. Quote
Slim Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Looks like the stadium objectors have got themselves a new logo (from their FB page) This is some stunning self-awareness from someone most likely typing that from inside a Stewart Milne house once sat on rural green belt: Stewart Milne is damaging beautiful country any pay cheap to landowners. Landowners should say no and keep the rural lands. Quote
manc_don Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00 get it signed Quote
RicoS321 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Stewart Milne is damaging beautiful country any pay cheap to landowners What the fuck does that even mean? Quote
Elgindon Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 The use of the word 'devastating' regards the impact of the stadium. Quote
RicoS321 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Club just released this. http://www.afc.co.uk/stadium.php Some good stuff, I doubt the locals have a leg to stand on. The 12,500 has been reduced to 12,000.... Quote
manc_don Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Club just released this. http://www.afc.co.uk/stadium.php Some good stuff, I doubt the locals have a leg to stand on. The 12,500 has been reduced to 12,000.... The link to the register was the one I posted earlier - we need as many folk to get behind it as possible Quote
donsdaft Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Fuck! I thought you wanted us to object. Quote
Garlogie_Granite Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Surely his job is to represent his constituents and this is just political prudence? It's a rock and a hard place for him really, isn't it? The residents don't want anything build, no compromises, so there's nothing for him to discuss with AFC. It'll go through regardless of his opinion, so why ingratiate himself to the club rather than the people who vote for him? It's not laziness, just that there is nothing for him to discuss. If the club get permission, then it would make sense for him to have a meeting to discuss parking and so forth. He's probably a dick like, but that's neither here nor there. Or you could just not read the Daily Record, that would help. Never read the DR, it was posted to the Yes Kingsford page. His constituency is Aberdeenshire West, it's massive, Westhill is a tiny part of it, where a minority of residents are against this. I'd imagine that the overwhelming majority either don't care, or as polls of Dons fans have shown, are in favour. But regardless, his objections were of the calibre of the NKS mob - "tens of thousands of football fans each week", "traffic chaos", "roads not designed to cope", all this from his hideaway miles away at the other end of his constituency, and without doing the slightest bit of due diligence with the club. That is his job. Quote
RicoS321 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Posted January 31, 2017 Never read the DR, it was posted to the Yes Kingsford page. His constituency is Aberdeenshire West, it's massive, Westhill is a tiny part of it, where a minority of residents are against this. I'd imagine that the overwhelming majority either don't care, or as polls of Dons fans have shown, are in favour. But regardless, his objections were of the calibre of the NKS mob - "tens of thousands of football fans each week", "traffic chaos", "roads not designed to cope", all this from his hideaway miles away at the other end of his constituency, and without doing the slightest bit of due diligence with the club. That is his job. Nah, his job is to represent the residents. That means those that come to him to object - in this case against the dons proposal. He'll have had a fair number of folk objecting, so he picks a side (based on political prudence) and fights that side. So he's representing them in the best way he possibly can by making hysterical comments not based on fact (he may or may not believe his hysterical pish). His job is definitely not to go through "due diligence" with the club, as he's not interested in their opinion before the planning decision, he's there to obstruct them. That's how politics works. If enough folk had hassled him, sent him email and turned up at his constituency office to speak to him about the benefits he'd be representing them. Because that is his job. A planning officer will weigh up whether his objections are pish or not, and quickly conclude that they are. Anyway, I'm just glad you didn't read the daily record. Quote
tom_widdows Posted February 11, 2017 Report Posted February 11, 2017 Absolute shed-load of Objections appeared since the start of February. Still another 16 days of public comments to come too Quote
Edinburghdon Posted February 11, 2017 Report Posted February 11, 2017 Absolute shed-load of Objections appeared since the start of February. Still another 16 days of public comments to come too Seems folk have been hanging around westhill handing out tick box forms to anyone that'll take them and putting them in as objections Quote
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.