New stadium thread

[Edinburghdon]

I'd have thought in that circumstance it would not be cheaper or perhaps more expensive given it could only hold the capacity of the bus once in a direct trip with not much scope for anything else.

 

Do you really think a full bus doing done trip is as cost effective as one partially full or half empty bus doing one trip? Or that a bus doing multiple almost full trips as would be the case in a properly planned service wouldn't be more cost effective than one doing a couple of full runs then a couple of basically empty runs as is the case with the current x17? It's blindingly obvious a properly run shuttle could be more cost effective or cheaper than the service buses.

 

 

When the SPFL took over in 2013 they removed basically every stadium requirement. Neil Doncaster article in the Herald in February talking about standing where he says Arbroath and Ayr are two of his favourite grounds.

 

They haven't though have they? The rules on min capacity in the top league has been relaxed I'll give you that, the rules for standing in the top leagues is limited to the rail style seating as previously mentioned. Doesn't matter if Doncaster likes Arbroath or Ayr or not, they'd not be able to have that layout in the league we are in. Makes it a bit of a pointless argument don't you think?

 

I suspect it's where the council may have said a stadium could go, with all the allusions about Seaton and regeneration and since it's been noted as a potential place for a football academy in previous city plans.

 

You can suspect all you like, I don't think it's based on anything more than that, if the council had said as much why isn't it mentioned I'm any council plans? Also, a football academy is castle different to a 20k stadium don't you think? Ones ever so slightly bigger than the other...

 

Yes, and given clubs like St Mirren saying they can't have safe standing because of the architecture and others not being able to have it because it needs the weight spread evenly and not having the correct exits, why are we not planning for that?

 

Exeter's relatively new terrace...all that anyone needs.

 

 

As mentioned previously Aberdeen have said repeatedly that safe standing is an option depending how the trial at Celtic park goes, no part of that suggests the current proposed design couldn't accommodate it. You're making that assumption purely because there's seats there just now despite the club saying there will be a standing area if it's called for and works.

[jess]

Heres a random mix of clubs and their shuttle to stadium services,to give you an idea

 

 

Leeds -  https://www.leedsunited.com/club/Matchday-guide

 

Colchester -  http://www.cu-fc.com/news/article/travel-shuttle-bus-224084.aspx

 

Reading -  http://www.readingfc.co.uk/club/travel/buses-trains/

 

 

  Re the standing section -  I'm not sure there would actually be that much of a demand for it.The singing section got their wish for location to the Merkland end(where they stand most of the time anyway),but it hasnt caught on.Whether thats because its mixed with the family section,or the plonkers that go there(or the songs they sing),or maybe just the dour N/E nature.Do you really think there is a demand for it,and how big an area?

 

Survey of 2500

 

"If the new stadium included safe

standing, would you prefer to stand

there rather than be in the seated areas?"

 

Yes 51.80% 1,324

No 31.14% 796

Don't know 17.06% 436

 

These singing sections are not reflective of anything for loads of reasons.

 

There's hundreds or thousands depending on the game standing in the south just now anyway and used to be the same in the dick donald.

[jess]

Do you really think a full bus doing done trip is as cost effective as one partially full or half empty bus doing one trip? Or that a bus doing multiple almost full trips as would be the case in a properly planned service wouldn't be more cost effective than one doing a couple of full runs then a couple of basically empty runs as is the case with the current x17? It's blindingly obvious a properly run shuttle could be more cost effective or cheaper than the service buses.

They haven't though have they? The rules on min capacity in the top league has been relaxed I'll give you that, the rules for standing in the top leagues is limited to the rail style seating as previously mentioned. Doesn't matter if Doncaster likes Arbroath or Ayr or not, they'd not be able to have that layout in the league we are in. Makes it a bit of a pointless argument don't you think?

 

You can suspect all you like, I don't think it's based on anything more than that, if the council had said as much why isn't it mentioned I'm any council plans? Also, a football academy is castle different to a 20k stadium don't you think? Ones ever so slightly bigger than the other...

 

As mentioned previously Aberdeen have said repeatedly that safe standing is an option depending how the trial at Celtic park goes, no part of that suggests the current proposed design couldn't accommodate it. You're making that assumption purely because there's seats there just now despite the club saying there will be a standing area if it's called for and works.

 

Where does it say anything about the type of standing? I think that was SPL rules before anyone did it. I first read it from QoS/Morton fans talking about what would happen if they were promoted. There's one set of rules for the SPFL.

 

http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf

 

There's nothing there apart from pitches so I don't see how it would make any difference what it is. It's not marked down as anything or off limits in the 2017 plan.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Celtic standing section is driven from executive level - Peter Lawell.

 

The SPFL, SFA is littered with politics, silly rules and regulations.  It makes it hard to make progress atmosphere wise.

 

The people that run Aberdeen Fc (Milne, Fraser, Yule) are severely out of touch but they lack the ability to influence authorities at both national football and local legislative level.

 

Celtic standing section had to jump through loads of hurdles before it passed and become reality (including local council in Glasgow) but it helps that club wanted it too happen and used its influence to get it through and past various authorities.

 

All Aberdeen FC want to do is move to a new stadium, screw supporters by charging £30 at the turnstile and attract more corporate fans.  Come in, sit down, shut up - go home. They could not give a damm about people who want to come and stand and have a beer and have no interest in engaging a matchday experience outside of handing out free t-shirts to kids.

 

Anyone that comes to Pittodrie and tried to create any sort of atmosphere has been hounded out, branded and labelled something derogatory.  Most folk come to Pittodrie to pick their nose.

 

Seems a bit odd that a couple of hundred who for years have stood in Section Y would not go to a standing section at Aberdeen.  All the club had to do years ago was cut out the seats at Y section and replace it with a rail-seat area and steward it properly.

 

 

 

 

[Elgindon]

Am not against a standing section by the way,but I seem to remember a bit of a clamour to get a singing section into the Merkland.A lot of the requesters seem to have disappeared.

  There was some demand at the time(I think) to make the whole stand the singing section.Even if youd quadrupled the amount of guys that go in that case,it would still be a tiny percentage of the stand capacity.So,say there was a proper section,eg a standing section cage within the Merkland stand,how much more different would it work to what we have now,and how much more different therefore would it be in a new stadium?

  Though I'm not ruling out a new stadium triggering something more enthusiastic,the club have to work with the only figures theyve got to date to know what type of area there would be demand for....

[tom_widdows]

Yes, and given clubs like St Mirren saying they can't have safe standing because of the architecture and others not being able to have it because it needs the weight spread evenly and not having the correct exits, why are we not planning for that?

 

This statement intrigues me and I would like to know which clubs have put this as reason.

 

As for adding safe standing to the stadium plans or even post completion the higher the overall capacity the less hassle it is to install. Looking at St Mirren park it seems to me the stands have been designed to the minimum requirement and with the low capacities this means any increase in spectator numbers throws up the red light. If they had put in an additional vomitory to each stand then they would have some wiggle room but at the time standing wasn't allowed and hence it wasn't a priority. I believe the stadium was paid for by Tesco or Asda so I wonder how much power the club had in terms of costs.

 

Also I pointed out earlier in this thread the parking standards for stadiums is 1 space per 15 seats so the minimum for a 20000 seat stadium is 1334. Kingsford masterplan has 1600spaces which is actually enough for 24000 seats.

Perhaps this is forward planning by the designers?

 

 

 

 

[100% Anti Kingsford]

There was a request for a Singing section in whole of Merkland.  This was after the club said South Stand would be a 'sitting' singing section.

 

After a boardroom discussion about the whole thing and concept they bottled out of making the Merkland or the SS the singing section and dismissed the idea of moving the family stand to lower RDS.

 

Instead, there was a decision to create a small singing section in the Merkland Stand.

 

Unfortunately (unsurprisingly) this section has not taken off due to a multitude of factors.  Amongst these factors are the clubs desire for Pittodrie to be 'family friendly' at the expense of everything else.  In addition, the place is stewarded to hell, passionate support is deemed risky and even the idea of a capo with a megafone was rejected as the club felt that it would 'create the impression there was a fire' (not joking either).

 

Similar harrassment and bad treatment of supporters (sometime young kids 13yrs+) happened in upper RDS, and the Y.

 

The club have proved that they do not want to engage in atmosphere creation.  They do all they can to stop it occuring and instead have the strategic aim of attracting 'families' and 'corporate fans'.

 

I dont think anyone disagrees with that, its just that in progressive nations (Denmark, Sweden, Germany) they create areas for all types of fans inside the ground hence why they are more successful than us!

 

Unfortunately at Aberdeen FC there is a total resistance by those running the club to create atmosphere.  Its happened at Celtic as they have let it happen and pushed for it - singing section with 3600 season tickets, flags etc.

 

Its up to the people running the club really.  But they are out of touch with things so struggle to get more than 11,500 fortnightly.  It shouldnt be a surprise that they want to screw supporters with Kingsford.

 

With the Kingsford Project we were promised (I have it on authority and asked a person at this open night) "will the new stadium have a standing section"?

 

The answer was - "yes, that is the plan".

 

If you look at the plan - no safe standing section.

[Nips_and_Tatties]

This statement intrigues me and I would like to know which clubs have put this as reason.

 

As for adding safe standing to the stadium plans or even post completion the higher the overall capacity the less hassle it is to install. Looking at St Mirren park it seems to me the stands have been designed to the minimum requirement and with the low capacities this means any increase in spectator numbers throws up the red light. If they had put in an additional vomitory to each stand then they would have some wiggle room but at the time standing wasn't allowed and hence it wasn't a priority. I believe the stadium was paid for by Tesco or Asda so I wonder how much power the club had in terms of costs.

 

Also I pointed out earlier in this thread the parking standards for stadiums is 1 space per 15 seats so the minimum for a 20000 seat stadium is 1334. Kingsford masterplan has 1600spaces which is actually enough for 24000 seats.

Perhaps this is forward planning by the designers?

 

We had a vomitory just outside our local pub.

 

Fuckin mingin stink.

[jess]

This statement intrigues me and I would like to know which clubs have put this as reason.

 

Groningen and PSV are two I remember. It's on stadiumdb somewhere although PSV have now done it with rail seating.

[tom_widdows]

 

If you look at the plan - no safe standing section.

 

You mean the 'planning' drawings which show a general stadium layout?

 

Lets wait for the Warrant/ Construction drawings

[tom_widdows]

Groningen and PSV are two I remember. It's on stadiumdb somewhere although PSV have now done it with rail seating.

 

Gronigen and PSV initially said they couldnt put in safe standing as their stadiums/ stands couldnt spread the weight evenly?

 

That is a rather worrying statement and I would be questioning the design of their stadiums if there wasn't an allowance for being certain areas being over capacity in emergency situations

[jess]

Am not against a standing section by the way,but I seem to remember a bit of a clamour to get a singing section into the Merkland.A lot of the requesters seem to have disappeared.

  There was some demand at the time(I think) to make the whole stand the singing section.Even if youd quadrupled the amount of guys that go in that case,it would still be a tiny percentage of the stand capacity.So,say there was a proper section,eg a standing section cage within the Merkland stand,how much more different would it work to what we have now,and how much more different therefore would it be in a new stadium?

  Though I'm not ruling out a new stadium triggering something more enthusiastic,the club have to work with the only figures theyve got to date to know what type of area there would be demand for....

 

I remember a heap of fans in their 20s saying they were going to go with their mates and one in particular on facebook saying him and his 15 mates were ready to buy season tickets. I would have gone with everyone I know from our nomadic positions in the south.

 

I'm not going to a singing section, with 25 flags in the air and a constant drum standing out like fuck, in the blinkin family stand, which is the hard to believe logic failure of the club of 'we'll increase it if the demand is there'. The demand wasn't and isn't there for that, it's for a cheap home end where you can stand with your mates. It would have been great having a full merkland like that for the big games. Cancelled because 500 cunts in the rds claimed they wouldn't renew and the club bottled it. Well how many like the above and families did they cause not to turn up over this season?

[Edinburghdon]

Where does it say anything about the type of standing? I think that was SPL rules before anyone did it. I first read it from QoS/Morton fans talking about what would happen if they were promoted. There's one set of rules for the SPFL.

 

http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf

 

There's nothing there apart from pitches so I don't see how it would make any difference what it is. It's not marked down as anything or off limits in the 2017 plan.

 

Are you genuinely taking the piss? The link I've shown you to twice states what is the accepted type of safe standing.

 

Must admit I'm doing this on my phone so can't search the link provided but if you read the interview/q&a it clearly states what the accepted safe standing design for the Scottish premiership is.

 

Seaton not being marked as off limits in the latest local plan doesn't mean that it's been proposed nor does it mean it's suitable or even large enough.

[jess]

The STV q&a was from 2011 and the SPL's rule. The SPFL when formed in 2013 scrapped all requirements. It can be anything that passes H&S.

 

Seaton hasn't been proposed officially by anyone, the ITKers (not 100%AKers) have said the council 'found' a site by the beach when it became apparent the club were actually going to disappear from the city centre with the benefits it brings to them. Reading between the lines of all the responses from the ACC councillors in their capacity so far, this adds up pretty much exactly. I think it was the economic one that basically called out the club's efforts to stay in and around Pittodrie as bullshit.

[Edinburghdon]

The STV q&a was from 2011 and the SPL's rule. The SPFL when formed in 2013 scrapped all requirements. It can be anything that passes H&S.

 

Seaton hasn't been proposed officially by anyone, the ITKers (not 100%AKers) have said the council 'found' a site by the beach when it became apparent the club were actually going to disappear from the city centre with the benefits it brings to them. Reading between the lines of all the responses from the ACC councillors in their capacity so far, this adds up pretty much exactly. I think it was the economic one that basically called out the club's efforts to stay in and around Pittodrie as bullshit.

 

Seems the link you provided makes no mention at all about safe standing, don't you think it's telling that every single article since only talks about rail seating? There's no mention at all of anything else being acceptable.

 

As far as a location at the beach, kings links is in the local plan and discussed already in this thread. As far as the council "finding" a location... where's there any evidence of that being true? Some people saying it doesn't mean it's based on any kind of reality.

[Sandaldinho]

I must admit I've followed this thread with interest for a while now, I'm happy to go with Tom Widdows, seems to be he only one talking any sense about it.

I can understand the "Don't leave Pittodrie" crowd but all the arguments for staying appear to be based on nostalgia and in my experience (I work in construction but on a smaller scale) just aren't feasible.

Yeah it would be fuckin awesome to stay there and yes we could probably come up with some sort of design but on a build of this type anything out of the ordinary would cost us a small fortune. Without our biggest asset to sell we would be screwed. Doesn't matter who done what elsewhere on the planet, the build cost for re developing pittodrie would cripple us.

[jess]

Interesting

 

"In February and March the Arsenal Supporters' Trust asked 7,239 people how they felt about the idea of introduction of safe standing at Emirates Stadium.

 

Not surprisingly, the opinions were overwhelmingly in favour. What may be surprising is the scale. Massive 96% feel there should be such sections at their stadium and only 20% of them would not wish to stand themselves while letting others occupy such sections. Yes, 76% of surveyed Arsenal fans wish to stand during games.

 

Possibly the most important data commercially is that from fans attending fewer than 10 games per season. Many of them suggest they would likely come more frequently if allowed to stand during games and thus have a better matchday experience."

 

http://stadiumdb.com/news/2017/04/london_arsenal_supporters_almost_unanimously_for_safe_standing

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Yes, its been proven through many avenues e.g. research, questionnaires, survey's that lots of fans are heavily in favour of safe standing.  This is across the UK.

 

I've 4 or 5 times written to the club (AFC) informing them if they get a safe standing section I will buy a season ticket and 2 others and donate these to charity.

 

As regards 'Kingsford' the club on numerous occasions stipulated that the new stadium would have a safe standing section.  I specifically attended one of these events and asked some club representative to his face 'will the new stadium have a safe standing section' and his answer was 'yes it will'.

 

What evidence is there that this will be the case?

 

As things stand there does not seem to be much in the way of stopping clubs installing these rail seating areas other than sheer bloody minded opposition. There is the added complication at Aberdeen that the place is riddled with former Police who take a risk approach to everything.

 

In the UK the standing issue is as mad as the no drinking issue.  People can spend 2 hours before the game getting rat arsed in a nearby pub before going to the game.  That money could have been spent inside the stadium - all money down the drain.

 

Likewise, I watched big screens at Hampden on Saturday.  From the 5th minute an intermittent statement 'please do not stand' kept flashing up on the scroreboard.  If you looked at the North Stand and the West (part of it) everyone was standing.

 

So basically at Hampden, and weekly on Y section of South Stand unsafe standing is occuring weekly.

 

The question is why have we reached this nonsensical maddening scenario?

 

Celtic have safe standing section - it works.  Its policed, stewarded and season ticketed out the door.

 

German clubs have them - works well if you watch Bundesliga.

 

Yet at Aberdeen we are dragging heels on the whole thing?

 

Just what do the club propose doing?

 

 

[Edinburghdon]

Interesting

 

"In February and March the Arsenal Supporters' Trust asked 7,239 people how they felt about the idea of introduction of safe standing at Emirates Stadium.

 

Not surprisingly, the opinions were overwhelmingly in favour. What may be surprising is the scale. Massive 96% feel there should be such sections at their stadium and only 20% of them would not wish to stand themselves while letting others occupy such sections. Yes, 76% of surveyed Arsenal fans wish to stand during games.

 

Possibly the most important data commercially is that from fans attending fewer than 10 games per season. Many of them suggest they would likely come more frequently if allowed to stand during games and thus have a better matchday experience."

 

http://stadiumdb.com/news/2017/04/london_arsenal_supporters_almost_unanimously_for_safe_standing

 

Thatll be why the club have repeatedly said they'll have one provided the Celtic trial goes well then won't it?

 

Really not sure where the feeling that the club is against it comes from, they've been quite clear in what they've said st the roadshows and exhibitions etc.

[manc_don]

Thatll be why the club have repeatedly said they'll have one provided the Celtic trial goes well then won't it?

 

Really not sure where the feeling that the club is against it comes from, they've been quite clear in what they've said st the roadshows and exhibitions etc.

 

Agreed. Although I think it's a shame that they didn't decide to try and be trail blazers in the trial. But hey ho, as long as it's still on the table that's all I care, which it is.

[Edinburghdon]

Agreed. Although I think it's a shame that they didn't decide to try and be trail blazers in the trial. But hey ho, as long as it's still on the table that's all I care, which it is.

 

I can only imagine it's because the club don't see the point in spending the cash required to do it at pittodrie, which I see the sense in.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

To be honest the club have done everything they can to stop an atmosphere at Pittodrie.  It doesn't cost much to install safe standing.

[jess]

Thatll be why the club have repeatedly said they'll have one provided the Celtic trial goes well then won't it?

 

Really not sure where the feeling that the club is against it comes from, they've been quite clear in what they've said st the roadshows and exhibitions etc.

 

That was for anyone wondering about demand but I also read the plan, and on police advice, was for a corner.

 

In announcing this specifically designed seat, Arsenal has taken stadia seating in Britain to a new level, with Emirates Stadium being the first to provide every seat in a stadium with an upholstered seat, thus considerably enhancing spectator comfort.

 

After an extensive research programme, the seat, which is being produced by leading manufacturers Starena International, has been designed to deliver a range of features to enhance the match day experience for spectators and will also provide Arsenal a product which complements the new World class Emirates Stadium, which is due to open in August 2006.

 

Starena, who have produced seating in major arenas including the Olympic Games in Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004, worked on the brief set by Arsenal Managing Director Keith Edelman. Within the revolutionary 'Arsenal Seat' there are integrally fitted pads, as well as a higher back and a larger seat area than in any other stadium in the United Kingdom, thus moving spectator comfort to the forefront of seat design.

 

So despite having a specially commissioned biggest most comfortable seat in the UK after a research programme, 76% would rather stand. Seating is dead.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

The issue of safe standing is a political one in the UK.  There is the spectre of 'Hillsborough' and Police Federation then H&S do gooders who know not much about football watching.  However, the arguments against safe standing  fell down years ago namely in that at the moment unsafe standing is occurring week in week out across the whole of the UK.

 

People are standing in stadiums all over the UK from Section Y at Pittodrie to Hampden on Saturday.  People are breaking the rules.

 

Safe standing introduces rail seats - as in 'safe' standing. More safe than current standing.  The arguments against it are nonsensical considering its only part of the stadium.  In addition these areas are heavily stewarded, sectioned off - in the UK they are well at Celtic.  Likewise in Sweden e.g. Friends Arena you cant really get in - you have to have a season ticket for that standing area.

 

As far as I am aware the Celtic standing area is a sort of proof of concept if you like.  Rangers want it but they have the backdrop of Ibrox disaster issue in the backdrop and some are conscious of upsetting families impacted.

 

In England the view is that safe standing will come into place within the next 10 years.  It would seem the move towards it is and may come about slowly.  From next season every Premiership side have to locate away fans behind goals in a pitch side area or at least some fans in this seating.  There have been huge complaints about fans being charged £45 and shoved up to the top tier at Sunderland or Chelsea or Newcastle.

 

Certainly, there are more than me not for Kingsford for lots of reasons. But the club should be looking to integrate a standing section now and be innovative but its glaringly absent from a plan and design that is stale, cheap and is St Mirren Park II.

 

[manc_don]

Thought the numskulls had been quiet for some time, right on cue.

 

The No Kingsford Stadium organisation is worried about fan segregation around the proposed site for Aberdeen's new stadium at high-profile matches against the likes of Celtic and Rangers.

 

Honestly, you can't design a stadium without addressing it. It's pathetic at best trying to claim otherwise. Very rarely do you see fences in football in the UK and the points raised are frankly a waste of air. There's potential for violence every day, let alone at football and very little of what has been described is different to the norm. The police will do their job accordingly.