New stadium thread

[manc_don]

You've not got a clue jess. Simple as that

 

[jess]

How about... erm... having to move as redeveloping the existing site to anywhere near the same capacity is impossible?

 

What for?

 

Guaranteed benefits - what are they?

[jess]

You've not got a clue jess. Simple as that

 

About what?

[tom_widdows]

Lets see now.

A club in the 3rd largest city in Scotland which on several occasions a season can bring in crowds of 20000 even when they are losing should cut their capacity thereby reducing arguably their largest potential income stream

I would love to seem them (or indeed any other business) approach potential sponsers/ funders with that business plan.

If there was ever an example of Scottish lack of ambition.

 

You can get all of the above in parts of Pittodrie which are empty.

RDS

The only 'modern' stand in the stadium but it was built before UEFA started their bullshit  pitch size regulations. To allow for European matches to be played the pitch had to be lengthened which fucked up the sight lines from the Upper Tier so from certain seats you struggle to see the goal line.

 

South Stand

Im 6ft 4 and yet there is only one occasion I can remember seeing a player take a corner from the South stand/ RDS corner flag. That was the first ever 'away' spl match against Caley Thistle when I took the opportunity to watch the Dons from the away section.

In my younger days I couldn't see about 1/4 of the pitch thanks to the segregation fences.

It is also rapidly becoming a death trap (see my post about stadium design about 40 pages ago)

 

Merkland

Supporting pillars, shallow angle and as with the south stand if you sit in the front rows you get neck-ache having to look up due to the height of the pitch and the drainage profile.

Circulation is not quite as bad as the South stand but it is still poor

 

Main

Front section is the only place you get a decent view but you also get very wet. Rear section - pillar central

Designed for the days when wood & asbestos were the materials of choice and people were apparently max 5ft5.

 

Only the RDL has the unrestricted views of a modern stadium.

 

Often thrown about claims the small away supports are due to the facilities. Other team's forums are actually full of them saying there'd be no point going and they're not getting a shuttle bus.

The small away supports are due to Pittodries facilities? Well having sat in the away section I can see why. 1/3 of it is uncovered, there is no windshield from the north Sea elements, the fence blocks your view of the south/ merkland corner flag and there are barely any catering facilities or enough toilets.

There is also the 'Aberdeen is miles away' mentality. Perth is OK, Dundee at a push but that last 60miles? no chance

 

What other teams forums are actually discussing the new Dons stadium any more than 'i see the sheep are trying to move'?

Please provide links to these discussions as I am actually interested to see their thoughts and also the people saying they wont go because of having to use a shuttle bus.

 

When everyone sings there's a great atmosphere and when they don't there isn't any at all. Everything else is a myth. It's not going to change no matter what shape or size anything is.

What is a myth? That trying to understand the PA announcements from the centre of the pitch is extremely difficult?

That noise from one stand is barely audible from another due to the open nature of the ground?

 

White Hart Lane (before they started dismantling it) springs to mind. Totally enclosed and steep angles having the fans pretty much on top of the players. The low roof with no open corners contained and circulated the noise and you didn't need a sell out crowd or everyone singing to build the atmosphere.

Modern stadiums design includes acoustics, something which was not considered 115 years ago when the main stand was built, or when they bolted seats and quick roof over the south stand.

So you are indeed correct. Staying at pittodrie will mean NOTHING changes

 

Can they get cheaper was the point. The answer is they won't. They've said they'll be adding to them for parking and buses.

No the answer is YOU have decided they wont.

Where does it say the ticket prices will increase? How do you know that this ultra modern stadium wont allow the club to charge £22 per ticket which includes a free ticket on the shuttle bus.

How do you know that the ticket prices may increase to say £25 but you get a 'free' snack & drink & shuttle bus ticket with it?

 

I know all that. I'm looking for the case for moving stadium. It seems to be, to save money on maintenance and kitchens and the rest we don't have a clue and could be a disaster.

 

A disaster will be when the Safety certificate for the Main Stand is revoked. A disaster will be when the Capacity of the South Stand is cut in order to obtain the safety certificate or eventually closing altogether when  inadequte pre war foundations finally lose their battle with the sandy soil. Do you know how much it costs to underpin or even replace foundations?

These are genuine threats and no matter how much money the club spends on maintenance there will come a time wont be able to get around the ever evolving health & safety regulations.

 

Here's a case for moving stadium

To redevelop pittodrie the following costs/losses will arise

1) No immediate capital from selling pittodrie to developers.

 

2) Loans taken out to pay for the re-building of 3 stands. The new stands will have to allow for future pitch expansion (UEFA did it once, they can easily do it again) modern emergency access,  crowd circulation, toilet & catering facilties, corporate. The foundations for these new stands will be more expensive due to the sandy soil.

The club will need to approach investors, funders, banks etc with a business model that shows they are cutting their potential income streams to do all this thereby making it harder for them to pay the loans off quickly. This does not give them a strong footing for getting a good deal. Nothing quite like a high interest long term loan to cripple you.

 

3) Losing one stand at a time means the lower capacity stadium starts immediately. If the South stand goes first the capacity immediately drops to 12000. Having to accommodate away fans means home support seats are cut even further. The new south stand will be significantly smaller (it cant be any taller than existing without potential legal challenges and it must comply with modern stadia regs) so lets say it ended up being 4000 seats. The next stand you lose is the Merkland and its replacement's capacity will be about half of the existing (about 1500). Then the Main stand goes and once again new stand will have a capacity about 50% of the existing possible even less if they try to maintain corporate facility levels.

Lower fan potential = less ticket money, less potential merchandise sales, less money from catering, less money from pitch side sponsors= less playing budget and so on

 

4) Still got to build those training facilities somewhere

 

 

The cost of a 21,000 Links stadium was to be £42m.

Evidence of this please?

And by evidence I mean an actual masterplan of the site which would allow a proper budget cost to be calculated and not just a figure picked out of the air by builder.

All I have ever seen for this Kings Links stadium was a couple of artists impressions so if you have access to a fully master-planned scheme like the ones for Loriston or Kingsford please either post it here or PM me as I genuinely want to see it.

 

Did that £42million allow for compensating/ relocating the Golf course/ driving range?

Did it include the car-parking, road upgrades, flood defences (yes that's right), complicated ground preparation and foundation design, training facilites?

 

I've heard builders say they could build a house for £120k only for this to almost double when the planning drawings are complete and then rise again once the Structural Engineer gets involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OxfordDon]

Hemmin Tom, you dinnae half save me from having to type.

 

The only thing i would add is:

 

When everyone sings there's a great atmosphere and when they don't there isn't any at all. Everything else is a myth. It's not going to change no matter what shape or size anything is.

 

Sorry Jess but to be pedantic that bit is the very definition of the term acoustics. 

 

acoustic

??ku?st?k/

noun

plural noun: acoustics; noun: acoustics

 

    1.    the properties or qualities of a room or building that determine how sound is transmitted in it.

    "the Symphony Hall has perfect acoustics"

 

That's nae me nitpicking or being argumentative though, it's an area that many people vastly underestimate in terms of its significance and is one of my very few realms of (apparent) expertise

 

edit - read that back and it sounds a bit more smug than it should've, sorry.  It is an important factor to take into account though.

[jess]

Lets see now.

A club in the 3rd largest city in Scotland which on several occasions a season can bring in crowds of 20000 even when they are losing should cut their capacity thereby reducing arguably their largest potential income stream

I would love to seem them (or indeed any other business) approach potential sponsers/ funders with that business plan.

If there was ever an example of Scottish lack of ambition.

 

Our attendances in all of McInnes's games in the last 4 seasons:

 

 

Are we reliant on those hun, tim and european games?

 

RDS

The only 'modern' stand in the stadium but it was built before UEFA started their bullshit  pitch size regulations. To allow for European matches to be played the pitch had to be lengthened which fucked up the sight lines from the Upper Tier so from certain seats you struggle to see the goal line.

 

So fans go through all the stress of those other stands to better see the goal line you can't see from almost every part of the other stands?

 

I have wondered why they don't replace the barrier at the front.

 

 

The small away supports are due to Pittodries facilities? Well having sat in the away section I can see why. 1/3 of it is uncovered, there is no windshield from the north Sea elements, the fence blocks your view of the south/ merkland corner flag and there are barely any catering facilities or enough toilets.

There is also the 'Aberdeen is miles away' mentality. Perth is OK, Dundee at a push but that last 60miles? no chance

 

What other teams forums are actually discussing the new Dons stadium any more than 'i see the sheep are trying to move'?

Please provide links to these discussions as I am actually interested to see their thoughts and also the people saying they wont go because of having to use a shuttle bus.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165864-pittodrie-unfit-for-purpose/page-2

 

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1083417-Aberdeen-on-brink-of-historic-%A340million-stadium-move

 

 

What is a myth? That trying to understand the PA announcements from the centre of the pitch is extremely difficult?

That noise from one stand is barely audible from another due to the open nature of the ground?

 

 

There's no atmosphere because of the uneven stands.

 

When there's any singing you can hear it from anywhere. There's no atmosphere because nobody sings and when most do it's at speaking volume. If there's the same lack of singing in a new stadium there would still be no atmosphere, which will be the case till they sell booze at home games and inhibitions are lost.

 

No the answer is YOU have decided they wont.

Where does it say the ticket prices will increase? How do you know that this ultra modern stadium wont allow the club to charge £22 per ticket which includes a free ticket on the shuttle bus.

How do you know that the ticket prices may increase to say £25 but you get a 'free' snack & drink & shuttle bus ticket with it?

 

Where does it say prices will decrease and a core focus is to make football genuinely affordable to increase attendances? Do you think the above is actually likely and how?

 

A disaster will be when the Safety certificate for the Main Stand is revoked. A disaster will be when the Capacity of the South Stand is cut in order to obtain the safety certificate or eventually closing altogether when  inadequte pre war foundations finally lose their battle with the sandy soil. Do you know how much it costs to underpin or even replace foundations?

These are genuine threats and no matter how much money the club spends on maintenance there will come a time wont be able to get around the ever evolving health & safety regulations.

 

Yes, a lot. When is it likely to happen? In the worst possible case the RDS and Merkland hold 10,000.

 

 

Here's a case for moving stadium

To redevelop pittodrie the following costs/losses will arise

1) No immediate capital from selling pittodrie to developers.

 

2) Loans taken out to pay for the re-building of 3 stands. The new stands will have to allow for future pitch expansion (UEFA did it once, they can easily do it again) modern emergency access,  crowd circulation, toilet & catering facilties, corporate. The foundations for these new stands will be more expensive due to the sandy soil.

The club will need to approach investors, funders, banks etc with a business model that shows they are cutting their potential income streams to do all this thereby making it harder for them to pay the loans off quickly. This does not give them a strong footing for getting a good deal. Nothing quite like a high interest long term loan to cripple you.

 

3) Losing one stand at a time means the lower capacity stadium starts immediately. If the South stand goes first the capacity immediately drops to 12000. Having to accommodate away fans means home support seats are cut even further. The new south stand will be significantly smaller (it cant be any taller than existing without potential legal challenges and it must comply with modern stadia regs) so lets say it ended up being 4000 seats. The next stand you lose is the Merkland and its replacement's capacity will be about half of the existing (about 1500). Then the Main stand goes and once again new stand will have a capacity about 50% of the existing possible even less if they try to maintain corporate facility levels.

Lower fan potential = less ticket money, less potential merchandise sales, less money from catering, less money from pitch side sponsors= less playing budget and so on

 

4) Still got to build those training facilities somewhere

 

But you're talking as if we average about 5,000 more than we do. We struggle to break 10,000 season ticket holders which includes the smaller deals. A better smaller stadium full the majority of the time would be an improvement financially. They've planned/hoped for an average of 13,750 at Kingsford. The submission relies on that in a lot of areas.

 

Corporate doesn't have to be in the main stand and 1500 is about 11 rows of the very shallow Merkland. Is that right?

 

What's with them building onto Merkland Lane and Pittodrie Street in the housing plans with rerouted roads? Is there no scope for us to do anything like that? Have we tried?

 

 

Evidence of this please?

And by evidence I mean an actual masterplan of the site which would allow a proper budget cost to be calculated and not just a figure picked out of the air by builder.

All I have ever seen for this Kings Links stadium was a couple of artists impressions so if you have access to a fully master-planned scheme like the ones for Loriston or Kingsford please either post it here or PM me as I genuinely want to see it.

 

Did that £42million allow for compensating/ relocating the Golf course/ driving range?

Did it include the car-parking, road upgrades, flood defences (yes that's right), complicated ground preparation and foundation design, training facilites?

 

I've heard builders say they could build a house for £120k only for this to almost double when the planning drawings are complete and then rise again once the Structural Engineer gets involved.

 

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=73327&sID=27599

 

Blanked out costs version but it's referred to in council meetings as 10% more than Loirston which was £38m. It says who came up with the cost there.

 

Likewise have I missed proof of redevelopment capacity and cost on basically anything?

[tom_widdows]

Our attendances in all of McInnes's games in the last 4 seasons:

 

 

Are we reliant on those hun, tim and european games?

 

34 games in which the attendance was more than 12000.

Say if Pittodrie only had a 12000 capacity over the last 4 seasons the club would have missed out on revenue from approx 103,000 people @ say £21 per ticket = £2,163,000 in ticket money + merchandise + Food & Drink.

 

Yeah lets reduce the capacity and say goodbye to that kind of income.

 

 

So fans go through all the stress of those other stands to better see the goal line you can't see from almost every part of the other stands?

 

I have wondered why they don't replace the barrier at the front.

 

Item 1 - Yes

 

Item 2  - Replace it with what? its a Glazed barrier of at least 1100mm height constructed in compliance with BS EN

1991-1-1/PD 6688-1-1.

Replacing it will not help the screwed up sight lines

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/165864-pittodrie-unfit-for-purpose/page-2

 

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1083417-Aberdeen-on-brink-of-historic-%A340million-stadium-move

 

Only quickly skimmed the jambos board but I don't see anything that suggests an away fans  boycott from one of Scotlands bigger clubs

 

I point blank refuse to click on follow follow but given they failed to organise a serious boycott at tannadice over being charged to attend a rescheduled match I seriously doubt that horrible club would not pack out and as per usual, vandilise the away end in a new stadium.

 

There's no atmosphere because of the uneven stands.

 

When there's any singing you can hear it from anywhere. There's no atmosphere because nobody sings and when most do it's at speaking volume. If there's the same lack of singing in a new stadium there would still be no atmosphere, which will be the case till they sell booze at home games and inhibitions are lost.

 

item 1 - Absolutely. Lets get a nice new fully enclosed stadium with equal sized stands.

Item 2 - Really? I've been in what I thought was a great bounce in one stand (South or RDS). Then after the game I hear complaints from fans sat in other stands about lack of singing and atmosphere.

Are all the people you attend games with stone cold sober? If they are I envy you. In previous seasons I've been on trains/ volunteered to drive mini-buses in which some of my group have failed to even make it to the match due to the alcohol intake either on the journey or in the pub before hand.

Being able to buy a couple more pints inside the stadium will not suddenly turn every single fan into an Ultra.

Some people sing, some people don't. A well design stadium with proper acoustics can help compensate for the latter.

 

Where does it say prices will decrease and a core focus is to make football genuinely affordable to increase attendances? Do you think the above is actually likely and how?

You are the one who brought up the ticket price issue. Until the club announce plans anything on this is pure speculation and to claim one side or the other in an argument is pointless.

 

Yes, a lot. When is it likely to happen? In the worst possible case the RDS and Merkland hold 10,000.

I'm not a psychic, structural engineer, or HSE Officer.

I predict the moment will come when the price of keeping the stand open is more than the money the stand actually brings in.

In the worst possible case the club lose all access to the Main Stand including offices, board room, Corporate boxes, changing rooms. Lose the facilities in the Main and the stadium could actually be shut down.

 

But you're talking as if we average about 5,000 more than we do. We struggle to break 10,000 season ticket holders which includes the smaller deals. A better smaller stadium full the majority of the time would be an improvement financially. They've planned/hoped for an average of 13,750 at Kingsford. The submission relies on that in a lot of areas.

Please refer to the start of this response

 

Corporate doesn't have to be in the main stand and 1500 is about 11 rows of the very shallow Merkland. Is that right?

Corporate can be anywhere but having it on your longest stands means more facilities

No matter where you put it in a redeveloped pittodrie it will reduce the standard seating capacity.

Remove it and the club loses a large chunk of revenue. Hearts suffer from their lack of corporate boxes and they have chosen not to put them in their new stand. May reduce construciton costs but it also reduces potential income.

What's with them building onto Merkland Lane and Pittodrie Street in the housing plans with rerouted roads? Is there no scope for us to do anything like that? Have we tried?

large scale sports stadiums are not the same as domestic houses.

Go to Page 48 of this thread

 

 

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=73327&sID=27599

 

Blanked out costs version but it's referred to in council meetings as 10% more than Loirston which was £38m. It says who came up with the cost there.

 

Likewise have I missed proof of redevelopment capacity and cost on basically anything?

 

That document is a business strategy from almost a decade ago. It is not a feasibility study nor a detailed masterplan of the stadium and facilities

There are also the advantages and disadvantages

 

Advantages

- Established destination for support - fair enough

-Identified in Local Plan as an opportunity site for new stadium. - Local Plans change, Councils can re-zone land at any time, only stated as an 'opportunity'. Every large open site in the city of Aberdeen is an 'opportunity' until you make the first enquiry

 

- Potential to act as a catalyst for community regeneration. - Potential is the key word in this one but why would a new stadium suddenly make Seaton a better place to live? Has the sports village suddenly made it more desirable?

 

Disadvantages are: -

- Constrained site – cannot accommodate Football Club’s requirements.

- Little or no Community Use Opportunities

- Greater risk in terms of ground conditions

-Common Good question remains over land

- Existing tenants will require compensation potentially making it unaffordable

 

That's just the summary. Have a swatch at the SWOT analysis.

Does anyone still want to push for the Kings Links site?

 

 

 

 

[Dunty]

Lets see now.

A club in the 3rd largest city in Scotland which on several occasions a season can bring in crowds of 20000 even when they are losing should cut their capacity thereby reducing arguably their largest potential income stream

I would love to seem them (or indeed any other business) approach potential sponsers/ funders with that business plan.

If there was ever an example of Scottish lack of ambition.

RDS

The only 'modern' stand in the stadium but it was built before UEFA started their bullshit  pitch size regulations. To allow for European matches to be played the pitch had to be lengthened which fucked up the sight lines from the Upper Tier so from certain seats you struggle to see the goal line.

 

South Stand

Im 6ft 4 and yet there is only one occasion I can remember seeing a player take a corner from the South stand/ RDS corner flag. That was the first ever 'away' spl match against Caley Thistle when I took the opportunity to watch the Dons from the away section.

In my younger days I couldn't see about 1/4 of the pitch thanks to the segregation fences.

It is also rapidly becoming a death trap (see my post about stadium design about 40 pages ago)

 

Merkland

Supporting pillars, shallow angle and as with the south stand if you sit in the front rows you get neck-ache having to look up due to the height of the pitch and the drainage profile.

Circulation is not quite as bad as the South stand but it is still poor

 

Main

Front section is the only place you get a decent view but you also get very wet. Rear section - pillar central

Designed for the days when wood & asbestos were the materials of choice and people were apparently max 5ft5.

 

Only the RDL has the unrestricted views of a modern stadium.

The small away supports are due to Pittodries facilities? Well having sat in the away section I can see why. 1/3 of it is uncovered, there is no windshield from the north Sea elements, the fence blocks your view of the south/ merkland corner flag and there are barely any catering facilities or enough toilets.

There is also the 'Aberdeen is miles away' mentality. Perth is OK, Dundee at a push but that last 60miles? no chance

 

What other teams forums are actually discussing the new Dons stadium any more than 'i see the sheep are trying to move'?

Please provide links to these discussions as I am actually interested to see their thoughts and also the people saying they wont go because of having to use a shuttle bus.

What is a myth? That trying to understand the PA announcements from the centre of the pitch is extremely difficult?

That noise from one stand is barely audible from another due to the open nature of the ground?

 

White Hart Lane (before they started dismantling it) springs to mind. Totally enclosed and steep angles having the fans pretty much on top of the players. The low roof with no open corners contained and circulated the noise and you didn't need a sell out crowd or everyone singing to build the atmosphere.

Modern stadiums design includes acoustics, something which was not considered 115 years ago when the main stand was built, or when they bolted seats and quick roof over the south stand.

So you are indeed correct. Staying at pittodrie will mean NOTHING changes

 

No the answer is YOU have decided they wont.

Where does it say the ticket prices will increase? How do you know that this ultra modern stadium wont allow the club to charge £22 per ticket which includes a free ticket on the shuttle bus.

How do you know that the ticket prices may increase to say £25 but you get a 'free' snack & drink & shuttle bus ticket with it?

 

A disaster will be when the Safety certificate for the Main Stand is revoked. A disaster will be when the Capacity of the South Stand is cut in order to obtain the safety certificate or eventually closing altogether when  inadequte pre war foundations finally lose their battle with the sandy soil. Do you know how much it costs to underpin or even replace foundations?

These are genuine threats and no matter how much money the club spends on maintenance there will come a time wont be able to get around the ever evolving health & safety regulations.

 

Here's a case for moving stadium

To redevelop pittodrie the following costs/losses will arise

1) No immediate capital from selling pittodrie to developers.

 

2) Loans taken out to pay for the re-building of 3 stands. The new stands will have to allow for future pitch expansion (UEFA did it once, they can easily do it again) modern emergency access,  crowd circulation, toilet & catering facilties, corporate. The foundations for these new stands will be more expensive due to the sandy soil.

The club will need to approach investors, funders, banks etc with a business model that shows they are cutting their potential income streams to do all this thereby making it harder for them to pay the loans off quickly. This does not give them a strong footing for getting a good deal. Nothing quite like a high interest long term loan to cripple you.

 

3) Losing one stand at a time means the lower capacity stadium starts immediately. If the South stand goes first the capacity immediately drops to 12000. Having to accommodate away fans means home support seats are cut even further. The new south stand will be significantly smaller (it cant be any taller than existing without potential legal challenges and it must comply with modern stadia regs) so lets say it ended up being 4000 seats. The next stand you lose is the Merkland and its replacement's capacity will be about half of the existing (about 1500). Then the Main stand goes and once again new stand will have a capacity about 50% of the existing possible even less if they try to maintain corporate facility levels.

Lower fan potential = less ticket money, less potential merchandise sales, less money from catering, less money from pitch side sponsors= less playing budget and so on

 

4) Still got to build those training facilities somewhere

 

Evidence of this please?

And by evidence I mean an actual masterplan of the site which would allow a proper budget cost to be calculated and not just a figure picked out of the air by builder.

All I have ever seen for this Kings Links stadium was a couple of artists impressions so if you have access to a fully master-planned scheme like the ones for Loriston or Kingsford please either post it here or PM me as I genuinely want to see it.

 

Did that £42million allow for compensating/ relocating the Golf course/ driving range?

Did it include the car-parking, road upgrades, flood defences (yes that's right), complicated ground preparation and foundation design, training facilites?

 

I've heard builders say they could build a house for £120k only for this to almost double when the planning drawings are complete and then rise again once the Structural Engineer gets involved.

 

Didn't think we ever had any artists impressions for Kings Links. Would be interested to see them.

 

Out of interest Tom, where do you stand on a potential stadium at Loirston should the one at Kingsford not go ahead?

[donsdaft]

You want to see an artists impression?

 

Bloody hell min, just imagine a giant glass box.

 

In keeping with the rest of " modern" Aberdeen

[RicoS321]

34 games in which the attendance was more than 12000.

Say if Pittodrie only had a 12000 capacity over the last 4 seasons the club would have missed out on revenue from approx 103,000 people @ say £21 per ticket = £2,163,000 in ticket money + merchandise + Food & Drink.

 

Yeah lets reduce the capacity and say goodbye to that kind of income.

 

 

Ye see, out of all your other good points, it all comes back to this. The 12,000 capacity. That is the only important thing here. You're right, it would be a huge loss.

 

I think you have little difficulty showing how it'd be possible for us to only have 12,000 capacity. However, do you genuinely believe that if someone came to you and asked to 16,000 seats - lets say - on Pittodrie's site that you wouldn't be able to find a way? It is my opinion - as I've mentioned - that the 12,000 figure was requested. That the appraisal for re-development of Pittodrie was specifically targeted at producing a case for re-location rather than case for re-development. That's why we've got such a low figure, that's why we have no drawings to back it up. I guarantee that if there were drawings, then qualified folks such as yersel would be able to pick holes in it and submit improvements that could really elevate the capacity. The 12,00 fugure isn't the result of trying every possible conceptual design and shape, eeking out every single square inch and additional seat. It's a result of being asked to downplay the existing site and come up with a figure that makes it ridiculous to re-develop. I don't believe otherwise, and I don't believe that anyone on here - including you - really believes otherwise. Yes, you can show how they could have arrived at 12K, but do you believe that, that is the best possible capacity in that site?

 

Because that's why I find your arguments slightly strange. I think you know that the 12K is low, and I find it strange that you need to back-up the club on this. We're all dons fans (nae sure about 100%AK) and all want what's best for the club, and I understand that. But we are the club and this should be our decision, nae some temporary Milne custodian. We're not being given a fair representation of the existing site here. The same effort has not been made for Pittodrie as has Loirston, Kingsford and th'ither een fae years back. We should be looking at a 20K Kingsford design and, let's say, a 15K Pittodrie design that can be poured over and reviewed and asked as fans of the club to make a decision. If ever there was a call for a referendum cunty thing, this was it. This is a decision being made for us and playing on the fact that folk like a shiny new thing while deliberately playing down the alternative. This is us for the next 100 years. We're being deliberately deprived of the facts, and I'm surprised more folk on here aren't up in arms about it.

 

There's no sentimentality from my point of view, this is a bad business decision in my opinion, based on pushing through the stubborn desires of one man.

[Ten Caat]

I suspect you are probably correct Rico and that 15-16k is probably doable on a Pittodrie rebuild.

 

However (and I'm no civil engineer only going by supposition and whats been said before) the problem is purely and simply rebuilding the mainer. As "main" stands go it is currently totally undersized. However to rebuild it as a true "mainer" would demand the rerouting of Pittodrie Street and all the services (gas electric sewer cable etc) which makes it an economically unfeasible proposition.

 

We could no doubt rebuild a modern looking stand on its present footprint but it would look like and be of a similar capacity of a mcdiarmid mainer. Thus to achieve the 15-16k the new soother would in effect become our new true "mainer" and merkland road also gaining significant size.....

 

Dont think the resulting outcome would look particularly aesthetically pleasing. And then there is the perennial problem of installing a pitch that woould adhere to current UEFA regulations. I guess there must be a way of solving out current perennial tattie field of a pitch but again I dont think it would be cheap.

 

Kingsford it is....

[100% Anti Kingsford]

20,000 is being mentioned (e.g. in planning etc) as 20,000 is generally regarded by UEFA (at the moment) as the minimum required for certain types of fixtures of UEFA e.g. Europa League. Groups. 

 

I love this thread.  Anything 'negative' in tone to Kingsford gets swept aside as 'just words' or if you state facts or views there are demands for 'actual visible sources' and 'facts' and even when you provide these its dismissed as 'not actually true'.

 

You've been brainwashed by the club.

 

Its like a little kangeroo court and red tinted virtual parliament on here.

 

What you going to do on June 21st the morning after Kingsford gets dismissed - cry?

 

 

 

 

 

[jess]

Ye see, out of all your other good points, it all comes back to this. The 12,000 capacity. That is the only important thing here. You're right, it would be a huge loss.

 

I think you have little difficulty showing how it'd be possible for us to only have 12,000 capacity. However, do you genuinely believe that if someone came to you and asked to 16,000 seats - lets say - on Pittodrie's site that you wouldn't be able to find a way? It is my opinion - as I've mentioned - that the 12,000 figure was requested. That the appraisal for re-development of Pittodrie was specifically targeted at producing a case for re-location rather than case for re-development. That's why we've got such a low figure, that's why we have no drawings to back it up. I guarantee that if there were drawings, then qualified folks such as yersel would be able to pick holes in it and submit improvements that could really elevate the capacity. The 12,00 fugure isn't the result of trying every possible conceptual design and shape, eeking out every single square inch and additional seat. It's a result of being asked to downplay the existing site and come up with a figure that makes it ridiculous to re-develop. I don't believe otherwise, and I don't believe that anyone on here - including you - really believes otherwise. Yes, you can show how they could have arrived at 12K, but do you believe that, that is the best possible capacity in that site?

 

Because that's why I find your arguments slightly strange. I think you know that the 12K is low, and I find it strange that you need to back-up the club on this. We're all dons fans (nae sure about 100%AK) and all want what's best for the club, and I understand that. But we are the club and this should be our decision, nae some temporary Milne custodian. We're not being given a fair representation of the existing site here. The same effort has not been made for Pittodrie as has Loirston, Kingsford and th'ither een fae years back. We should be looking at a 20K Kingsford design and, let's say, a 15K Pittodrie design that can be poured over and reviewed and asked as fans of the club to make a decision. If ever there was a call for a referendum cunty thing, this was it. This is a decision being made for us and playing on the fact that folk like a shiny new thing while deliberately playing down the alternative. This is us for the next 100 years. We're being deliberately deprived of the facts, and I'm surprised more folk on here aren't up in arms about it.

 

There's no sentimentality from my point of view, this is a bad business decision in my opinion, based on pushing through the stubborn desires of one man.

 

St Mirren's separated stands on 3 sides, which have concourses and a full deep main stand, fit in our footprint with loads of room to spare and hold 6390. The stadium cost £8m. The Merkland end could be much bigger and the corners filled in either with corporate or offices there instead of in the main (south) stand (which would save more space on that side) or more seats. I absolutely refuse to believe you could not have a 16,000 seater. With standing even 17-18,000.

 

Re: cutting off £2m, yes if it was 12,000 capacity, not if it was 15 or more and the average increased above our current one.

 

Re: barrier replacement, one that isn't on the goal line, or a different design and type. I don't know if you can have the ones with no rail on top like at Groningen's stadium, but that would solve it.

[Edinburghdon]

I love this thread.  Anything 'negative' in tone to Kingsford gets swept aside as 'just words' or if you state facts or views there are demands for 'actual visible sources' and 'facts' and even when you provide these its dismissed as 'not actually true'.

 

 

To say anything negative about kingsford is swept aside etc is pish, you only need to read the replies to see that.

 

You've also completely avoided posting any facts or actual sources at all, despite having plenty opportunity.

[tom_widdows]

St Mirren's separated stands on 3 sides, which have concourses and a full deep main stand, fit in our footprint with loads of room to spare and hold 6390. The stadium cost £8m.

 

And was paid for by Tesco

 

It is also within a self contained site with no major roads running right behind the stands. Fans exiting the stadium do so into carpark and concourse areas

Can everyone please understand that the moment the Main Stand & Merkland are demolished the requirement for controllable emergency concourses kicks in. Merkland Lane & Pittodrie Street are public 'collector' roads which can only be closed for maintenance or in emergency situations. This is why you risk getting run down when queuing to get in and when leaving.

You cannot close these streets without providing an equal & approved alternative as you are affecting emergency/ service vehicle access for the surrounding residential & commercial businesses.

This means the break out concourse will need to be contained within the footprint of both IE the entire capacity of the stand can be contained without anyone being forced to step onto the roads (perhaps even the pavement depending on where the site boundary is). The only way I can see this being achieved in the Main & Merkland is to (as Ten Caat has already said) move all admin/ changing rooms etc to the South. Raise the seating area up on stilts and put the turnstiles right at the front (as close to the pitch as possible) making it look similar to Hamilton's ground from the inside. Fans would walk underneath the stands, through the turnstiles then walk alongside the pitch and up sets of stairs. The circulation route between the turnstiles and the pitch would depend on the  stand capacity. A 1000 seat stand requires a 5.3m wide route. A 2000 seat stand would require 10.6m and so on (5.3mm x capacity).

Allowing for a cantilevered roof, support columns etc cuts the number of potential seating rows however it wouldn't matter how many seats you could install, you would only get a safety certificate for the amount of fans which can safely escape and be contained in an emergency.

 

The redeveloped south stand has the problem of having to achieve a wide enough escape routes for fans + the additional width required for emergency vehicle access a the same time as a mass evacuation. Having to fit Admin offices, changing rooms, corporate facilities etc further complicates this.

 

You would have more chance of getting more than 12000 seats if you actually removed the main stand completely thereby turning pittodrie into a 3 sided stadium, move the pitch closer to pittodrie street allowing the South stand footprint to be increased. This might actually allow a redeveloped south stand to be constructed higher than the existing depending on the distance between it and the flats behind.

This then adds the complication of adapting/ extending the RDS.

 

The Merkland end could be much bigger and the corners filled in either with corporate or offices there instead of in the main (south) stand (which would save more space on that side) or more seats.

Can't build any higher than existing without objections from the neighbours

If you fill in the corners how do emergency vehicles get onto the pitch?

If you fill in the corners how would a mass evacuation from the pitch be achieved (The last resort for stadiums is fans escaping onto the pitch and out through the emergency vehicle access routes)?

 

As above it doesnt matter how many seats or standing places you put in, you will only get a safety certificate for the number of people who can be safely evacuated and if necessary contained in a protected area.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

 

To say anything negative about kingsford is swept aside etc is pish, you only need to read the replies to see that.

 

You've also completely avoided posting any facts or actual sources at all, despite having plenty opportunity.

 

I've not been reading the volumes in detail on here but I'll tell you something for fuck all.

 

At least the boy's got some decency about him, some passion of conviction.

 

Unlike you ye nitpicking guffy establishment areselicking fud who says fuck all, ever.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

I have heard you cant build or rebuild the South Stand as the folk in the cemetery will be turning in their coffins.

 

I have heard they can't lay a 3G pitch on the Pittodrie Street car park as the players will have nowhere to park 4x4 cars.

 

I have heard that RDS cant be extended out eastwards any further as it will mean that wifie cannot sell programmes outside the RDS near Golf Road.

 

I have heard you cannot build Main stand higher as the air is thinner.

 

Excuses, after excuses after excuses after excuses....nae happy until the club moves to a cheap shit St Mirren Park in Westhill.

[OxfordDon]

I have heard you cant build or rebuild the South Stand as the folk in the cemetery will be turning in their coffins.

 

I have heard they can't lay a 3G pitch on the Pittodrie Street car park as the players will have nowhere to park 4x4 cars.

 

I have heard that RDS cant be extended out eastwards any further as it will mean that wifie cannot sell programmes outside the RDS near Golf Road.

 

I have heard you cannot build Main stand higher as the air is thinner.

 

Excuses, after excuses after excuses after excuses....nae happy until the club moves to a cheap shit St Mirren Park in Westhill.

 

That's nothing, just wait until you hear the real issues with a Pittodrie redevelopment, the ones above will seem ludicrous and childish in comparison.

[jess]

And was paid for by Tesco

 

It is also within a self contained site with no major roads running right behind the stands. Fans exiting the stadium do so into carpark and concourse areas

Can everyone please understand that the moment the Main Stand & Merkland are demolished the requirement for controllable emergency concourses kicks in. Merkland Lane & Pittodrie Street are public 'collector' roads which can only be closed for maintenance or in emergency situations. This is why you risk getting run down when queuing to get in and when leaving.

You cannot close these streets without providing an equal & approved alternative as you are affecting emergency/ service vehicle access for the surrounding residential & commercial businesses.

This means the break out concourse will need to be contained within the footprint of both IE the entire capacity of the stand can be contained without anyone being forced to step onto the roads (perhaps even the pavement depending on where the site boundary is). The only way I can see this being achieved in the Main & Merkland is to (as Ten Caat has already said) move all admin/ changing rooms etc to the South. Raise the seating area up on stilts and put the turnstiles right at the front (as close to the pitch as possible) making it look similar to Hamilton's ground from the inside. Fans would walk underneath the stands, through the turnstiles then walk alongside the pitch and up sets of stairs. The circulation route between the turnstiles and the pitch would depend on the  stand capacity. A 1000 seat stand requires a 5.3m wide route. A 2000 seat stand would require 10.6m and so on (5.3mm x capacity).

Allowing for a cantilevered roof, support columns etc cuts the number of potential seating rows however it wouldn't matter how many seats you could install, you would only get a safety certificate for the amount of fans which can safely escape and be contained in an emergency.

 

The redeveloped south stand has the problem of having to achieve a wide enough escape routes for fans + the additional width required for emergency vehicle access a the same time as a mass evacuation. Having to fit Admin offices, changing rooms, corporate facilities etc further complicates this.

 

You would have more chance of getting more than 12000 seats if you actually removed the main stand completely thereby turning pittodrie into a 3 sided stadium, move the pitch closer to pittodrie street allowing the South stand footprint to be increased. This might actually allow a redeveloped south stand to be constructed higher than the existing depending on the distance between it and the flats behind.

This then adds the complication of adapting/ extending the RDS.

Can't build any higher than existing without objections from the neighbours

If you fill in the corners how do emergency vehicles get onto the pitch?

If you fill in the corners how would a mass evacuation from the pitch be achieved (The last resort for stadiums is fans escaping onto the pitch and out through the emergency vehicle access routes)?

 

As above it doesnt matter how many seats or standing places you put in, you will only get a safety certificate for the number of people who can be safely evacuated and if necessary contained in a protected area.

 

I understand about the emergency routes and evacuation.

 

Hamilton, 6000 seats. Walkways and what's behind them included, in our footprint.

 

 

12,000. £40m. Sorry, I will die before I accept this.

 

I prefer the stands like those as well, on that point. Front row is a great view compared to not being able to see a thing.

 

Partick Thistle's north stand. 2,000 capacity. Half of it built in 2004 onwards I believe. Not as deep as our main stand.

 

[OxfordDon]

I'm really not sure what point you are making, other than illustrating how the Pittodrie footprint only has room for 2x New Douglas Parks (5400 not counting the temporary stand) plus a little more for what can be built in the slightly larger space at one end, presumably taking it up to around 12k.

 

Or am i missing the point?  Sorry if i am.  Tom has already gone through a wealth of explanations as to what could be fitted on the site in this thread, especially if you dig back a few years (this thread has been going since 2011).

 

I'm happy to defer to his view that while there might be room for some tweaking, its not going to give us much more than 12k, and its definitely not going to give us the 18k+ that we need.

 

I think we really need to move on from viewing Pittodrie as viable and focus on the proposals for new locations that have been mooted.

[jess]

I'm really not sure what point you are making, other than illustrating how the Pittodrie footprint only has room for 2x New Douglas Parks (5400 not counting the temporary stand) plus a little more for what can be built in the slightly larger space at one end, presumably taking it up to around 12k.

 

Or am i missing the point?  Sorry if i am.  Tom has already gone through a wealth of explanations as to what could be fitted on the site in this thread, especially if you dig back a few years (this thread has been going since 2011).

 

I'm happy to defer to his view that while there might be room for some tweaking, its not going to give us much more than 12k, and its definitely not going to give us the 18k+ that we need.

 

I think we really need to move on from viewing Pittodrie as viable and focus on the proposals for new locations that have been mooted.

It's 12,000 with no main stand, no corners and 15 metres behind the 2 stands.

[OxfordDon]

It's 12,000 with no main stand, no corners and 15 metres behind the 2 stands.

 

Ach min, i dinnae want to get drawn into a tit-for-tat over Pittodrie as i view it as the wrong focus of debate (and i have tae go tae bed!), but i nonetheless think you fighting a lost cause there - even if we airdrop your 2 main New Douglas Park stands in, they only have a capacity of 5300 (the other 700 is provided by a temporary stand, the translucent grey blob in the top right of your overlay), or probably around 3500 and 1800 each.

 

If we expand the 3500 to 4000, replicate it on the other side, and call 1800 2000, that's 10k.  Even if you cram another 3K into the larger footprint at the other end and gave another 1k for the corners, thats 14K.  That's still a good 4-6k short of what we need.  Now, I'll admit that i am through necessity plucking those expanded numbers out the air, but i'll be happy to be corrected with more substantiated estimates in either direction.

 

And that's without considering the cost of knocking everything down, the disruption to BAU, the loss of capital from selling the ground, the lack of room for other facilities, and the plethora of more technical issues raised by others in this thread (and which i'm nae really qualified to assess).

 

Also, just for clarity, i'm nae for the Kingsford proposal as it stands - i think it has several issues to address around transport, and i think it was a case of making the most of limited choices with the sudden collapse of Loirston as an option.  The club still has a way to go to make its case in more detail, and i hope they are in a position to come up with viable options or we will be forced into something even more remote.

 

But, on balance from the evidence provided, i also think the club has no choice but to move from Pittodrie.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.

 

Personally, if we were to redevelop anywhere, I'd be delighted if we just gave up on all this NE focus and shifted to Kassam stadium

[Garlogie_Granite]

 

 

I love this thread.  Anything 'negative' in tone to Kingsford gets swept aside as 'just words' or if you state facts or views there are demands for 'actual visible sources' and 'facts' and even when you provide these its dismissed as 'not actually true'.

 

See, you might have a point if you ever responded to questions, or posted verifiable facts, but instead, you next post is this......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have heard you cant build or rebuild the South Stand as the folk in the cemetery will be turning in their coffins.

 

I have heard they can't lay a 3G pitch on the Pittodrie Street car park as the players will have nowhere to park 4x4 cars.

 

I have heard that RDS cant be extended out eastwards any further as it will mean that wifie cannot sell programmes outside the RDS near Golf Road.

 

I have heard you cannot build Main stand higher as the air is thinner.

 

Excuses, after excuses after excuses after excuses....nae happy until the club moves to a cheap shit St Mirren Park in Westhill.

[manc_don]

I've not been reading the volumes in detail on here but I'll tell you something for fuck all.

 

At least the boy's got some decency about him, some passion of conviction.

 

Unlike you ye nitpicking guffy establishment areselicking fud who says fuck all, ever.

 

Wrong person to side with, Rocket. He's neither of those things. 100%AKS has been presented questions on countless occasions and I can't be arsed to go through it all again because they're tiresome and he never, ever provides facts.  ED, has been well within his rights to question them and done so with decorum.  Whilst I don't agree with Jess, at least they're coherent and probably a fairer representation of the fears / concerns moving away from Pittodrie.  The club should release the studies for Pittodrie, if only just to put it to bed.  If someone could get an existing scaled drawing of Pittodrie i'd happily do the test myself.

 

Jess, as a side note, it's never preferable to exit underneath a stand, although you're right in pointing out that it is done, Firhill being a good example of it.  We've had to do a similar exit strategy on another scheme, although the depth of the stand area was far greater than that of the Main Stand and probably the South stand.

[rocket_scientist]

I'm not "siding" with him. I've only been skimming the thread but I think you missed the point of my rant.

 

This whole subject regarding a stadium move has been engineered by one man.

 

Pittodrie has been deliberately neglected for a very long time in furtherance of his agenda.

 

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to move from Pittodrie. I just don't like the fact that it's one man's vision and that we, the fans, the customers, the ones who pay for it were never consulted. So when a naysayer starts naysaying, whether he's right, wrong, informed or misinformed, it offends those who "side" with authority every time and always trust those in charge and never question anything. The wolf may be bad but the sheep are why he can get off with wolfishness. That quote (by Orwell I think) about the deeds of evil men and how the evilness is standing by and letting it happen.