New stadium thread

[manc_don]

Again, what is your point, how does this relate to Pittodrie? Are you implying the south stand and riverside are similar? They are not.the main stand? You'll see they haven't touched that for the reasons outlined in my previous post. Merkie? We can't build higher than we already are and the spacing between seats increases because of modern standards. Instantly decreasing the number of seats as it is.

 

Hammersmith and putney ends have no habitable accommodation behind them. Hence why I mentioned the parks. Although, having said that the Hammersmith end has been developed up to its boundary, from memory the stand isn't much higher,  if at all, than the trees in the park.

 

I forgot to address your point about the riverside, this stand, had the concourse to the rear of it. The new stand will extend beyond,  in terms of access over the water but by doing so, they've allowed public access through the site. My hunch is the stand itself is still on their land but have been able to provide further access with agreement with the council to ensure public access through, which wasn't previously possible.

[jess]

So it's nothing to do with having space behind them for some sort of access or evacuation?  I'm sure I read that in this thread. You're saying it's all to do with the height?

 

Main stand - buildings aren't allowed to back onto pavements now? What on earth is going on?

 

And you can't build higher than anything around it? WTF?

[manc_don]

So it's nothing to do with having space behind them for some sort of access or evacuation?  I'm sure I read that in this thread. You're saying it's all to do with the height?

 

Main stand - buildings aren't allowed to back onto pavements now? What on earth is going on?

 

And you can't build higher than anything around it? WTF?

 

 

I'm not going to even bother answering this, because it's a waste of time.

[jess]

 

I'm not going to even bother answering this, because it's a waste of time.

 

Why not? You and your pal are giving out different messages and can barely explain what you're talking about because it all makes sense in your head alone.

 

This should save time rather than a full 3d model. Just draw the outline of where can and can't be built.

 

[RicoS321]

Why not? You and your pal are giving out different messages and can barely explain what you're talking about because it all makes sense in your head alone.

 

Nope. What they're saying makes entire sense if you've bothered to read the thread. It's been outlined perfectly. The basic points are:

 

You can't increase height of the South stand due to the flats behind.

 

You can't increase height of the Merkland due to the flats behind.

 

Those aren't planning considerations to be debated, they're red-lines. You simply can't do it. What we don't have - and what I, and others have been asking for, and should have been provided for by the club - is the exact measurements and proposals that make up the 12,000 seater stadium proposed. The reason for this is to verify that figure. That figure (such an accurate figure I mean) should not have been obtainable without drawings and plans, so I'd like to see those plans in order that qualified people can verify them (i.e definitely nae you, and nae me either). That would show the exact dimensions proposed and any assumptions made. That should be a reasonable request for any fan/member of a club that is being asked to move from their home of 100+ years.

 

The reason I raise is questions is because:

 

• No evidence for the 12,000 seater stadium has been provided
  
• There is no good reason for not providing that evidence if it is accurate
  
• The 12,000 figure was changed from 12,500 without explanation
  
• Post-Loirston, Milne was on record saying that we would have to look again at Pittodrie
  
• The above never happened, but would not have been raised as a possibility if the 12K figure was accurate and the club had drawings to back it up
  
• I believe the club has sought to present that figure as being as low as possible
  
• Because of that, I then believe that a larger figure could be achieved if seeking to maximise, rather than minimise the number
  
• I would accept a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over a 20K stadium at Kingsford
  
• I believe that with imagination and creativity, that figure could be reached
  
• I'm exceptionally surprised at the number of people who are happy to accept that it isn't possible based on being presented with no evidence
  

 

That's about it.

[Garlogie_Granite]

 

I'm exceptionally surprised at the number of people who are happy to accept that it isn't possible based on being presented with no evidence

 

I'm not questioning the move because I think it'll be tremendous having an all singing and dancing new stadium, but mostly because it's on my doorstep. I'm a YIMBY. 

[RicoS321]

I'm not questioning the move because I think it'll be tremendous having an all singing and dancing new stadium, but mostly because it's on my doorstep. I'm a YIMBY. 

 

I'm buying the Garlogie Inn and turning it into a paedophile rehabilitation centre. Then I'm going to under-fund it.

[Garlogie_Granite]

:rofl:

[donsdaft]

If it's a paedophile rehabilitation centre , under funded or not, the food should be better than it is now.

[Garlogie_Granite]

If it's a paedophile rehabilitation centre , under funded or not, the food should be better than it is now.

Good food at what in today's world are great prices. He generally is stuffed full of aul fogies, maybe you're too young DD? 

[manc_don]

Spot on Rico, I'd happily accept a 17/18k stadium, but I'm sure Tom workings will show that this figure isn't achievable. From memory they were pretty decent efforts, certainly explored different options.

[Ten Caat]

As I mentioned before, I too would be happy with an 18000 capacity redeveloped Pittodrie but I'm sure Tom did indeed show this was not possible. I actually dont buy into the 12000 capacity being all that can be achieved....i think they could get it up to 15000 if they really wanted but the problem being it would be economically unviable by needing to reroute Pittodrie Street and would also look horrendous with mismatched stands on every side

 

Making the new stadium only 17-18k would certainly guarantee a great atmosphere at most games but given our progression under McInnes we could be losing out on say 2000 fans in 4 Dhims/sevco games at roughly £25 a head equally £200k of lost revenue per year. If we could also start getting to the Europa League qualifying round on a regular basis we would surely sell that out too...using the same pricing formula there is another £80k missed out on....not to mention what we would miss out on if we actually qualified. At 20k capacity we would also get allocated World Cup / European Championship qualifiers / friendlies (and possibly rugby internationals too) that would instead go to Easter Road/Tynecastle/Rugby Park if we went for the lower option. So all in all I think the 20k capacity is the correct choice...

[gosgka]

flatten Pittodrie, rebuild the stadium with all four sides matching, even if it means only holding 18k. then build training facilities out at westhill and use the old bricks from Pittodrie to build a wall around Kingsford if they don't want us they should not get in to Aberdeen brick off the sods that will give them something real to moan about, they don't mind working and shopping in Aberdeen but god forbid we go out there once a fortnight to watch football

[RicoS321]

I think a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over 15 years would get more in total attendance than 20K at Kingsford. The initial glut that would tank up to a new stadium would put Kingsford significantly ahead for the first 2-3 seasons, however I think this would be quickly overtaken as crowds settle back down to a lower level (which they will). In Kingsford's case, we'll lose as much paying for the over-capacity as we gain from those games with the larger crowds (after the initial 2-3 season's excitement). I think we'd be more likely to get larger average crowds at Pittodrie @ 17K too because of the decreased supply and more tight atmosphere that it would create (a bit like closing dick's end improved our crowds). Finally, I don't think we'll get 20K at Kingsford. The club, initially, were very sketchy about the 20K+ thing. They kept saying "around" 20K. It wasn't until fans started questioning/complaining that they set out the 20K thing. I think that once we get into the build, they'll cut that down to 19K (which was mentioned at one stage) to save cash through the back door with some dubious explanation.

[Dunty]

Nope. What they're saying makes entire sense if you've bothered to read the thread. It's been outlined perfectly. The basic points are:

 

You can't increase height of the South stand due to the flats behind.

 

You can't increase height of the Merkland due to the flats behind.

 

Those aren't planning considerations to be debated, they're red-lines. You simply can't do it. What we don't have - and what I, and others have been asking for, and should have been provided for by the club - is the exact measurements and proposals that make up the 12,000 seater stadium proposed. The reason for this is to verify that figure. That figure (such an accurate figure I mean) should not have been obtainable without drawings and plans, so I'd like to see those plans in order that qualified people can verify them (i.e definitely nae you, and nae me either). That would show the exact dimensions proposed and any assumptions made. That should be a reasonable request for any fan/member of a club that is being asked to move from their home of 100+ years.

 

The reason I raise is questions is because:

 

• No evidence for the 12,000 seater stadium has been provided
  
• There is no good reason for not providing that evidence if it is accurate
  
• The 12,000 figure was changed from 12,500 without explanation
  
• Post-Loirston, Milne was on record saying that we would have to look again at Pittodrie
  
• The above never happened, but would not have been raised as a possibility if the 12K figure was accurate and the club had drawings to back it up
  
• I believe the club has sought to present that figure as being as low as possible
  
• Because of that, I then believe that a larger figure could be achieved if seeking to maximise, rather than minimise the number

• I would accept a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over a 20K stadium at Kingsford

• I believe that with imagination and creativity, that figure could be reached
  
• I'm exceptionally surprised at the number of people who are happy to accept that it isn't possible based on being presented with no evidence
  

 

That's about it.

 

The bit in bold, I certainly wouldn't. We'd be spending more money on a smaller capacity (and lets be honest, an inferior stadium) to the one at Kingsford simply because of history and people worrying about a shuttle bus.

 

Hearts are spending £12m on a new main stand to increase capacity and to make more money from hospitality. What the last few posts appear to be suggesting though is that we should do the opposite and essentially go to what Hearts had before the new stand - a 17,000 capacity, crammed in, and missing facilities that would otherwise make us money seven days a week.

 

I'm more than happy to leave Pittodrie, but like you I do hope the club come out and explain the 12,000 figure just to put an end to the argument once and for all.

 

Out of interest, have you ever approached the club for an answer? Maybe it's something worth raising with Dons Supporters Together?

[RicoS321]

The bit in bold, I certainly wouldn't. We'd be spending more money on a smaller capacity (and lets be honest, an inferior stadium) to the one at Kingsford simply because of history and people worrying about a shuttle bus.

 

Hearts are spending £12m on a new main stand to increase capacity and to make more money from hospitality. What the last few posts appear to be suggesting though is that we should do the opposite and essentially go to what Hearts had before the new stand - a 17,000 capacity, crammed in, and missing facilities that would otherwise make us money seven days a week.

 

I'm more than happy to leave Pittodrie, but like you I do hope the club come out and explain the 12,000 figure just to put an end to the argument once and for all.

 

Out of interest, have you ever approached the club for an answer? Maybe it's something worth raising with Dons Supporters Together?

 

I'm not asking the club to explain the 12,000 figure, I'm asking for evidence (and evidence that this is the maximum figure). I'm asking for drawings. There's a huge difference. For example, I could explain part of the 12K by saying that the South Stand has to be the same height. That doesn't show me what they've done to investigate ways round that issue, which flats would be affected etc. Anyone can explain a reason for them doing something that they want to do, that's easy. I have asked DST before, they are in support of the club - as per their surveys - and are happy with the 12K figure. I haven't asked the club, because I don't want them to appease me, hence the reason I'm just commenting on a forum and nae camping ootside the cooncil with a banner. I'm simply stating that a new stadium project should have had the full input of the fans and the club should have been largely agnostic and completely transparent; neither of which they have.

 

Hertz are spending money because their main stand needs renewed (like ours). They've not added significant corporate hospitality and, from memory, no pitch-facing corporate. I would suggest that with three new stands, we could easily increase our corporate hospitality. With the location of Pittodrie, I'd expect far more customers through the door during the week than at Westhill (next to the business park with more than adequate facilities), but if we're looking to make a killing on that then I think we'd be sadly disappointed. There's a saturation point for meeting and conference facilities and I think that both AFC and Aberdeen city have probably hit that. It certainly isn't worth moving stadium for the extra revenue. I think that's hugely over-stated. And indeed costly if not used.

 

Also, it's not about history for me, and not a single shuttle bus. It's about location and transportation. Massive issues. Unresolved at present.

 

[jess]

 

You can't increase height of the South stand due to the flats behind.

 

You can't increase height of the Merkland due to the flats behind.

 

Those aren't planning considerations to be debated, they're red-lines. You simply can't do it.

 

I have asked people who would know what they're talking about and they don't know why this would be the case for the Merkland's current height.

 

The issue is not even law in Scotland so I think it is considerations to be debated or negotiated and resolved, which is what ACC say in a post around 60 pages ago, and what they say in one of the site selection docs.

 

Hence, I don't know what those in this thread are talking about.

 

The reasons I've seen being perpetuated are

 

- You need the same space behind the stand on private land as there is in it

- Emergency services need to be able to go right around the stadium

- You can't build higher than the stands currently are

 

I think a 17K stadium at Pittodrie over 15 years would get more in total attendance than 20K at Kingsford. The initial glut that would tank up to a new stadium would put Kingsford significantly ahead for the first 2-3 seasons, however I think this would be quickly overtaken as crowds settle back down to a lower level (which they will). In Kingsford's case, we'll lose as much paying for the over-capacity as we gain from those games with the larger crowds (after the initial 2-3 season's excitement). I think we'd be more likely to get larger average crowds at Pittodrie @ 17K too because of the decreased supply and more tight atmosphere that it would create (a bit like closing dick's end improved our crowds).

 

This is exactly how I see it.

 

I'm more than happy to leave Pittodrie, but like you I do hope the club come out and explain the 12,000 figure just to put an end to the argument once and for all.

 

Out of interest, have you ever approached the club for an answer? Maybe it's something worth raising with Dons Supporters Together?

 

I've tried all possible channels and there is no explanation past 'due to the pitch size and run off areas and being landlocked we can establish the capacity of a redeveloped stadium'.

 

 

Hertz are spending money because their main stand needs renewed (like ours). They've not added significant corporate hospitality and, from memory, no pitch-facing corporate. I would suggest that with three new stands, we could easily increase our corporate hospitality. With the location of Pittodrie, I'd expect far more customers through the door during the week than at Westhill (next to the business park with more than adequate facilities), but if we're looking to make a killing on that then I think we'd be sadly disappointed. There's a saturation point for meeting and conference facilities and I think that both AFC and Aberdeen city have probably hit that. It certainly isn't worth moving stadium for the extra revenue. I think that's hugely over-stated. And indeed costly if not used.

 

Also, it's not about history for me, and not a single shuttle bus. It's about location and transportation. Massive issues. Unresolved at present.

 

Fine points. To me the location is terrible for a football stadium. Obviously out of town people think being able to drive there and home in 5 minutes is good, but to such a large amount of a football crowd the day is about more than going to the game. Kingsford doesn't and will never provide that, because it's not next to the city centre which is where all the necessary shops, pubs, restaurants and travel is.

[CvB]

I understand peoples reluctance to change, major change always makes people nervous because it's full of unknowns.

 

People need to bear in mind that we're talking about Kingswells here. Aberdeen isn't that big a city, we're not talking about a move out into the middle of nowhere like Alford (I know, that's not within the city boundaries but using it to make a point).

 

While the move to a new stadium is an unknown, it's compounded by multiple other unknowns. Parking, access, shuttle buses, new bypass etc etc.

 

I get it, I really do, but there's too much fixation on a lot of shit that you have either no way of influencing or no real idea what the impact will be.

 

Will the opening of the bypass vastly improve the flow of traffic through the city and if so, how long will it take to shuttle from the city centre to Kingswells?  The official studies forecast that will be the case, but I am no transport infrastructure planner so really I can't say one way or the other.

What I do know is that there will be much easier access to a stadium located in Kingswells based on the fact that there will be big new fucking major road that services the site.

 

Shuttle buses, will it be a pain in the arse? Maybe, then again maybe not. It depends on whether it's done properly or done half arsed. Much in the same way that the people objecting to this concept do, I'll make my own conclusions and say that on top of the Afc/cooncil busses I'd anticipate that certain bars that are normally busy pre and post match may lay their own minibuses. I used to get the bus from the Rosemount to Pittodrie, so it's not a new idea.

You know what though, if you have to go into town and go to a certain or bar or restaurant then just go into town half an hour earlier than you do now.

 

Embrace change, embrace the future, you never know, it might turn out to be not as shit as you fear.

 

[RicoS321]

Or you can fuck off with the patronising bullshit? Fear of change? Nervousness. Thanks for putting yer fatherly arm round us frightened souls, but it's fine, I'm happy to evaluate the plans like an adult and call them out for simply being a shite idea.

 

It was the same with the UTG pish. People were accused of being frightened of change and needed to be led by the business people of Aberdeen. Again, it was just a really shite idea.

 

Just to clarify, I'm very open to change, I get paid everyday to implement change, it's pretty much what I do. I'm even suggesting re-building Pittodrie because it's a shitehole - I have no attachment to the stands. I think Kingsford is a really shite location for a football stadium in comparison to the existing site. It's pretty simple stuff. If we were moving the other way, I'd be over the moon. Out of town offices, shopping centres, stadia, exhibition centres are inefficient retrograde steps not fit for the 21st century - Kingsford is no different. Thousands of people pointing their vehicles at the same location to spend money and then drive back again is shite. We're not B&fuckingQ, we're better than the Kingsford shite.

[rocket_scientist]

The winner of the best "joke"at the Edinburgh Festival this year was this: -

 

I'm not a fan of the new pound coin but then again I hate all change.

 

Ken Cheng was the "comedian" but it's not even funny. Mildly clever yes, but hardly jokeworthy.

[Madbadteacher]

Rico

We're not B&fuckingQ, we're better than the Kingsford shite.

 

Sadly, probably not in the eyes of most of Aberdeen/shire

 

We SHOULD stay at Pittodrie, but it's not going to happen. We need a plan 5 years ago, let alone now.

Kingsford is not my idea of AFC either, but seeing as the beach is out of it, and Gothenburg isn't feasible either, we have to go with what's on offer

[CvB]

Or you can fuck off with the patronising bullshit? Fear of change? Nervousness. Thanks for putting yer fatherly arm round us frightened souls, but it's fine, I'm happy to evaluate the plans like an adult and call them out for simply being a shite idea.

 

It was the same with the UTG pish. People were accused of being frightened of change and needed to be led by the business people of Aberdeen. Again, it was just a really shite idea.

 

Just to clarify, I'm very open to change, I get paid everyday to implement change, it's pretty much what I do. I'm even suggesting re-building Pittodrie because it's a shitehole - I have no attachment to the stands. I think Kingsford is a really shite location for a football stadium in comparison to the existing site. It's pretty simple stuff. If we were moving the other way, I'd be over the moon. Out of town offices, shopping centres, stadia, exhibition centres are inefficient retrograde steps not fit for the 21st century - Kingsford is no different. Thousands of people pointing their vehicles at the same location to spend money and then drive back again is shite. We're not B&fuckingQ, we're better than the Kingsford shite.

 

So, a change manager and not as you would lead us to believe an architect or an infrastructure planner?

If I was being fatherly it wouldn't be a comforting arm I was putting round your shoulders it would be a skelp round the lug you'd be getting.

 

Get it into your thick skull, all of the info that has been solicited from people who are actually qualified to pass fact rather than just opinion would appear to point towards the Pittodrie site being unsuitable to redevelop a stadium to the requirements that as a club they want/need, so maybe its time that you accepted that instead of repeating the same unproven, unfactual bullshit.

 

[RicoS321]

So, a change manager and not as you would lead us to believe an architect or an infrastructure planner?

If I was being fatherly it wouldn't be a comforting arm I was putting round your shoulders it would be a skelp round the lug you'd be getting.

 

Get it into your thick skull, all of the info that has been solicited from people who are actually qualified to pass fact rather than just opinion would appear to point towards the Pittodrie site being unsuitable to redevelop a stadium to the requirements that as a club they want/need, so maybe its time that you accepted that instead of repeating the same unproven, unfactual bullshit.

 

I've never suggested I was an architect, nor a change manager. Nobody has been solicited to provide drawings of the 12K seater at Pittodrie as far as I'm aware, ergo, noone is qualified to "pass fact". If you can point to anything relevant I've said that's unproven, then go for it. If you can point to any evidence of a 12K seater stadium, then I'll happily be persuaded. In fact, the only thing of any importance in this thread that remains unproven is the 12K figure.

[jess]

If you can point to any evidence of a 12K seater stadium, then I'll happily be persuaded. In fact, the only thing of any importance in this thread that remains unproven is the 12K figure.

 

Indeed. Although I'd also like to find out how they've calculated 6,000 seats as the same as a 25 hectares development.

 

And depending on the reason for the apparent capacity restriction, what difference all types of standing sections would make.

 

 

[RicoS321]

Indeed. Although I'd also like to find out how they've calculated 6,000 seats as the same as a 25 hectares development.

 

Not sure what you mean?

 

And depending on the reason for the apparent capacity restriction, what difference all types of standing sections would make.

 

It would reduce the capacity. Takes up more space.