New stadium thread

[RicoS321]

If one repeats a message, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

 

The only thing that matters is the truth.

 

I don't know what's best but I wouldn't slag another without having evidence to hit him with.

 

Personally, I can neither agree or disagree with him.

 

Because I don't know.

 

The consistency of his position isn't a cause for offence nor ridicule.

 

Exactly. Given the opposing position is "we need to move on", both sides are a stuck record until the evidence is actually presented.

 

Ten Caat, as for the Pittodrie street services, I'd guess a million or two? I suspect Stewarty's housing developments are rarely held up by such a concern. But the fact that we don't know is the biggest concern. The fact that, as fans of the club, we haven't been presented with a statement of cost for the ground to be re-developed. £35M is a lot of money for re-development of Pittodrie, and that's the non-Pittodrie-sale-related funds being found for Kingsford.

 

I'm certainly surprised more people aren't against this. If this were the hun being moved from Ibrox by Dave King (or Hertz with Romanov), we'd all be laughing at them getting screwed.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Yes, they can't redevelop Pittodrie Main Stand as 'it costs too much' and there are 'lots of problems with utilities' on Pittodrie Street.

 

Yet there would be no problem demolishing Pittodrie whatsoever and building hundreds of crap flats that very few people can afford (or student flats that will be paid for on debt) on Pittodrie Street and re-routing the utilities.  Not a problem.

 

Read through the Planning Application on ACC and some selected documents:

 

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00

 

The club has got mountains and mountains and mountains of obstacles to overcome if it wants a new stadium in Kingsford. 

 

Far more obstacles to overcome than bloody wires that run underneath Pittodrie Street.

[donsdaft]

Delay it another 10-15 years and it won't matter so much to me.

 

Mind you, I still like the idea of my loon taking his grandson "doon the Merkland Road"

 

I'm not one that thinks that Stewartie Milne just wants to move because he's desperate to build flats on the site.

I think that's a ridiculous idea.

 

He's a teuchter though, he thinks Westhill is the toon.

 

Westhill - better than fuckin Cove - still shite though.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Derek M. can't wait another 5-10 or 15 years for a training pitch or 4G pitches which are bundled up with the current undeliverable structure. 

 

There must be simpler means of delivering what needs to be done than the current political muddled strategy. It's not all going to get rubber stamped in October - can't be it's going to be rejected. 

 

Is it going to get rolled over and mothballed again?

 

 

 

 

[donsdaft]

I don't give a fuck where they train, but I want to watch my football at Pittodrie.

[tom_widdows]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-40774843

 

A pre-determination hearing into Aberdeen FC's plans for a new stadium on the outskirts of the city will take place in September.

The £50m stadium and training facilities would be at Kingsford, close to the Aberdeen bypass, near Westhill.

The hearing will take place on Wednesday 13 September at Aberdeen Town House.

It will give people who have written in about the application a chance to speak about it directly to city councillors.

Aberdeen FC said if planning permission was granted in October, it could still have the stadium completed in 2020.

Objectors say concerns include traffic and parking issues.

The club believes the new stadium is vital if it is to achieve a sustainable future.

 

Oh that should be fun for everyone 

 

 

[manc_don]

 

Does bring a wee tear to your eye, a decent watch

 

Associated podcast:

 

 

[donsdaft]

Bastards the lot of them.

 

 

(Jamie Smith was atrocious in the first half of the Copenhagen game)

[Dunty]

 

Does bring a wee tear to your eye, a decent watch

 

Associated podcast:

 

 

The podcast was a good listen.

[Tyrant]

Why do NKS continue to pretend that they're not building a brand new bypass?

[Gervaise_Brookhampster]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/yes-to-kingsford?bucket&source=facebook-share-email-button&time=1502114819

[donsdaft]

Well, I'm nae signing that.

 

[RicoS321]

Fit's with the single quotes round everything. Fuckin spakker. Petitions for everything these days.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

They are getting worried, and panic has set in.  The end is near and soon the hammer will fall on the nail.

 

Goodnight Sweet Prince - 'at least you tried.

 

Kingsford - R.I.P

2016-2017

[gosgka]

I have a better idea for a petition

lets make the road to Westhill a toll road

if they don't want us screw them, make them pay everytime they want to come in to Aberdeen

and lets give the money to charity that will make it harder for them to complain, but they will as the toll booth machine might make a noise and upset their delicate little ears

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Given this scenario is now coming to a pivotal point (like say an election where everything becomes fraught and divisive) I'd expect the discussions around this matter to polarise again.

 

One of the problems with this issue is that it has become so polarised between entrenched ideas and view i.e. AFC v No Kingsford when in actual fact it's a much bigger discussion. On AFC side - two parallels of Pittodrie redevelopment and Kingsford have never been measured properly and on Westhill side - it's just a big No from them across the board.

 

Entrenched, somewhat blinkered debate.

 

One of the problems with polarised arguments is people tend to not see sense, refuse to compromise and it becomes very destructive.  AFC, unfortunately, have been equally destructive and blinkered during this debate when the onus is ultimately on them as they are the ones with the idea.

 

I accept AFC has its strategy, this is what those that run the club want but if it is what they want it has been done very badly - poorly planned, desperate communication infringes all local and planning regulations.

 

Moreover, there are ridiculous travel and transport plans put in place by AFC (bordering on bonkers scenarios that will not work come match day) which regardless of what any ordinary bod in Westhill think don't work or add up in the slightest for those going to the game.

 

At the end of the day the club have let us down, let the players down and let McInnes down with the plans for Kingsford.  It is the responsibility of the club (Milne, Yule etc) to deliver and put in place all the required planning ideas to deliver a training ground.

 

They have failed, and they have failed as they are amateurish blinkered idiots.

[Garlogie_Granite]

and on Westhill side - it's just a big No from them across the board.

 

This is absolutely not the case. There's good support in Westhill, and in surrounds almost unanimous support/don't care.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

This is absolutely not the case. There's good support in Westhill, and in surrounds almost unanimous support/don't care.

 

I get that.  But it's not a case of petitions, support emails, or NK letters of opposition.  It's a question of PLANS - and submitting a proper professionally robust application, not a punt in the dark that fails on so many levels.

 

This is part of the issue. Both sides want to throw insults at each other (for example you have come on here lots of times and abused or thrown insults at me - a theme common to this whole thing on Twitter AND something done by AFC). It's not a question of whom is for it or against it. 

 

1: The club submits a plan.

2: The plan is assessed by relevant Council parties against criteria.

3: A decision is made and called on that criteria

 

The Council just can't approve it or dismiss Kinsgford as XYZ% want it or are against it or someone is submitting a petition with XY numbers on it or more people in Westhill are for it than against.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the plans, what they are about, what the entail, how good they are. 

 

The club current plans fail on so many levels. Go onto the portal and read reports - it's obvious it falls short and will not progress in October.  It may well be mothballed but it would make sense to find a more suitable site now for the sake of Derek Mc.

 

[RicoS321]

A pretty good point 100%AK. Garlogie, I believe he was referring to the No group's argument rather than the whole of Westhill when you read the sentence back.

 

It does seem like there's a lack of movement by AFC to address the issues raised. There is still plenty of time of course, and perhaps there's some tactic being deployed where any measures being taken will be revealed late on in the process to try and prevent any negative case being outlined before the decision meeting. Alternatively, AFC believe that their existing plan is a goer and they don't need to present any further mitigation of issues? That would seem a little reckless. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the concerns (transport etc) are completely genuine, and need a solution from AFC for the sake of its supporters.

 

 

[manc_don]

I definitely think that the application could and should have been dealt with better.  It just seems a bit amateurish on certain aspects, but some of what the No campaigners have said it pathetic. I'd love to see them get sued by the club for their misuse of the club mascots.

 

anyway, back on track.

 

The club are paying the price for appointing architects that are not up to the job and probably having a weak PM imo.  Applications of this ilk should be watertight from the outset, much like ours was for the AFC Wimbledon scheme, especially given that it is essentially on a shit bit of land.  We made sure that all the questions, in particular the transport question (which is completely valid) had viable answers to.  I'd hope that this would be in hand but it should have been in hand for the application.  The council may hold the club to the provision of the shuttle buses as part of any approval, it's certainly what the councils do down here, so i'd presume there was similar powers available to them in Scotland.  In the case of AFC Wimbledon, the only real objections came from the members of the dog track who didn't want to see their home of dog racing removed.  And still that is in an urban environment. 

 

The Nayers do always seem to conveniently forget that there is a new dual carriageway being built...wonder why that is.

 

I genuinely have no idea how the council are going to go on this one.  Id love to stay at Pittodrie but I just can't see how it is possible, least of all to the size we require.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

A pretty good point 100%AK. Garlogie, I believe he was referring to the No group's argument rather than the whole of Westhill when you read the sentence back.

 

It does seem like there's a lack of movement by AFC to address the issues raised. There is still plenty of time of course, and perhaps there's some tactic being deployed where any measures being taken will be revealed late on in the process to try and prevent any negative case being outlined before the decision meeting. Alternatively, AFC believe that their existing plan is a goer and they don't need to present any further mitigation of issues? That would seem a little reckless. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the concerns (transport etc) are completely genuine, and need a solution from AFC for the sake of its supporters.

 

What McInnes thinks of it all in private is unknown.  What Yule thinks of it in private is unknown.  Russell Anderson is out now and he was Business Dev manager.  PR Messages are spewed out via mass marketing email but it's all PR and there has been a consistent lack of effort to properly address pivotal issues consultant committees have asked to be addressed.

 

Just how does the club hope that it will progress come October? It can't just pass council planners as the club wants it to pass.

 

The whole new stadium scenario - Kingsford has become political, a political game that is muddy when if the club had simply done it all properly i.e. submit a proper plan, for an appropriate site, work closely and collaboratively with the council, do lots of due dligence even the naysayers would not have had a heal to stand on! 

 

The club has made it all muddy, alienated fans and some locals and clearly have not submitted a truly proper robust plan or addressed all things that need to be answered.

 

I read something Sunday that £5m spent on these plans since 1999. £5m? They have used many architects, they have used countless parties but still gone like a bull in a china shop for a bonkers location!

 

Again, it's not a question of FOR or AGAINST - it's a need for a proper plan that addresses the planning issues and regulations and the immediate sporting needs of McInnes. Read the planning portal - read the documents. 

 

Instead, the club has been stubborn (just as stubborn as ACC) and just want Kingsford to happen as they are AFC and because there is a nearby AWPR.

 

Was it not obvious to Milne and co. that Kingswells/Westhill people would form some sort of anti-backlash against this plan as they did during Keith Wyness time? 

 

[Chris Frae Killie]

I get that.  But it's not a case of petitions, support emails, or NK letters of opposition.  It's a question of PLANS - and submitting a proper professionally robust application, not a punt in the dark that fails on so many levels.

 

This is part of the issue. Both sides want to throw insults at each other (for example you have come on here lots of times and abused or thrown insults at me - a theme common to this whole thing on Twitter AND something done by AFC). It's not a question of whom is for it or against it. 

 

1: The club submits a plan.

2: The plan is assessed by relevant Council parties against criteria.

3: A decision is made and called on that criteria

 

The Council just can't approve it or dismiss Kinsgford as XYZ% want it or are against it or someone is submitting a petition with XY numbers on it or more people in Westhill are for it than against.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the plans, what they are about, what the entail, how good they are. 

 

The club current plans fail on so many levels. Go onto the portal and read reports - it's obvious it falls short and will not progress in October.  It may well be mothballed but it would make sense to find a more suitable site now for the sake of Derek Mc.

 

I am not from the area and so don't really have an opinion either way that would be unbiased. I want to see a brand spanking new stadium as it will generate more income for the club and a far better atmosphere at home matches. I am happy with the location because, coming from the south, it will take 20-30 minutes off my journey time.

Anyway, what I do have a relevant point to make about is when you say that councils make their decisions based purely on the plans. I wish that was true! sadly we live in a world where votes count and the more voters that appear to be in favour of something, the more likely the councilors are to vote that way. At the end of the day all they are interested in is their own position on the council........

[Garlogie_Granite]

Garlogie, I believe he was referring to the No group's argument rather than the whole of Westhill when you read the sentence back.

Westhill & NKS are absolutely not interchangeable, so I don't agree. As usual '100%' is making out local opposition is far more than it actually is just because the NKS group are shouting loudest.

[RicoS321]

Westhill & NKS are absolutely not interchangeable, so I don't agree. As usual '100%' is making out local opposition is far more than it actually is just because the NKS group are shouting loudest.

 

Fair doos min, but at least quote his whole sentence if you're going to be hold people to a certain standard, otherwise you undermine your own comments. Here:

 

One of the problems with this issue is that it has become so polarised between entrenched ideas and view i.e. AFC v No Kingsford when in actual fact it's a much bigger discussion. On AFC side - two parallels of Pittodrie redevelopment and Kingsford have never been measured properly and on Westhill side - it's just a big No from them across the board.

 

Seems to me like he meant No Kingsford, hence why he mentioned them earlier in the sentence. In fact, in that sentence, he's clearly being critical of the form of their objection.

[Garlogie_Granite]

Fair doos min, but at least quote his whole sentence if you're going to be hold people to a certain standard, otherwise you undermine your own comments. Here:

 

Seems to me like he meant No Kingsford, hence why he mentioned them earlier in the sentence. In fact, in that sentence, he's clearly being critical of the form of their objection.

Yes, but still trying to conflate kingsford with Westhill.