New stadium thread

[Garlogie_Granite]

Read it on afc chat

Don't 

[tom_widdows]

Read it on afc chat and facebook from people who'd posted about Westhill before it was announced.

 

Do you consider that to be a reliable source of anything?

 

In the early days AFC chat a rumour started that the Dons were going to sign Gabriel Batistuta thanks to an Oil Company (or 2) bankrolling his wages. I believe the boy who started that one actually got charged with some early internet crime.

 

Evidence would be say a letter or email from a council official. You could also even consider a story in the P&J

 

Someone posting on facebook or AFC Chat is the modern day equivalent of 'My mate heard from a guy in the pub that....'

 

 

[Gervaise_Brookhampster]

Do you consider that to be a reliable source of anything?

 

In the early days AFC chat a rumour started that the Dons were going to sign Gabriel Batistuta thanks to an Oil Company (or 2) bankrolling his wages. I believe the boy who started that one actually got charged with some early internet crime.

 

Evidence would be say a letter or email from a council official. You could also even consider a story in the P&J

 

Someone posting on facebook or AFC Chat is the modern day equivalent of 'My mate heard from a guy in the pub that....'

 

Heard fit???....... heard fit???..... Dinna keep us hanging

[Dunty]

Do you consider that to be a reliable source of anything?

 

In the early days AFC chat a rumour started that the Dons were going to sign Gabriel Batistuta thanks to an Oil Company (or 2) bankrolling his wages. I believe the boy who started that one actually got charged with some early internet crime.

 

Evidence would be say a letter or email from a council official. You could also even consider a story in the P&J

 

Someone posting on facebook or AFC Chat is the modern day equivalent of 'My mate heard from a guy in the pub that....'

 

You've actually, rather cleverly or by accident, just proved the theory not to believe anything you read on a forum.

 

The actual story was he signed in to the old club afc chat, found that due to some error he was able to post as a club official (who had verified accounts - the Dons being well ahead of twitter), and so he decided to have some fun by posting we'd signed Batistuta. Of course this sent the forum into a frenzy.

 

The club had a sense of humour bypass and banned him.

[jess]

Do you consider that to be a reliable source of anything?

 

In the early days AFC chat a rumour started that the Dons were going to sign Gabriel Batistuta thanks to an Oil Company (or 2) bankrolling his wages. I believe the boy who started that one actually got charged with some early internet crime.

 

Evidence would be say a letter or email from a council official. You could also even consider a story in the P&J

 

Someone posting on facebook or AFC Chat is the modern day equivalent of 'My mate heard from a guy in the pub that....'

 

I don't believe there's any chance this person made it up and persistently lied about something so random that came true a few weeks later. Unless others see a reason to?

 

 

[manc_don]

I don't believe there's any chance this person made it up and persistently lied about something so random that came true a few weeks later. Unless others see a reason to?

 

 

 

As soon as you said where you'd read it, the validity went out the window. Anyone can say anything on the Internet, I was talking about proof, not hearsay. People have a agendas, and will lie until theyre blue in the teeth. Report / email from the council would be the only way to prove that claim up. Even still, I doubt they'd be able to offer the area the club wants.

[jess]

As soon as you said where you'd read it, the validity went out the window. Anyone can say anything on the Internet, I was talking about proof, not hearsay. People have a agendas, and will lie until theyre blue in the teeth. Report / email from the council would be the only way to prove that claim up. Even still, I doubt they'd be able to offer the area the club wants.

 

Do you think he made up the first part and it happened to be right?

[manc_don]

Do you think he made up the first part and it happened to be right?

 

I've no idea, not saying it isn't true, but just because someone says it on a forum, doesn't make it gospel.  Needs credibility and substance to it. 

 

That said, if ACC had just come to the realisation at that time, that's their own fault.  AFC would have spunked shed loads of cash by that point and would have paid an extortionate amount in abortive fees to get a redesign / surveys etc...too late in the day.  A stadium doesn't get designed overnight, it takes years.

[Dunty]

Do you think he made up the first part and it happened to be right?

 

 

I remember reading this. He said he'd been told the deal was for Kings Links. From memory the council were willing to help relocate the golf driving range and let Aberdeen build there.

 

But Aberdeen have already responded to this in the application. As Tom Widdows has alluded to, building on the land would have issues, it's too small to include the training ground, and Aberdeen believe it'll cost them at least £6m more.

 

 

[jess]

I've no idea, not saying it isn't true, but just because someone says it on a forum, doesn't make it gospel.  Needs credibility and substance to it. 

 

That said, if ACC had just come to the realisation at that time, that's their own fault.  AFC would have spunked shed loads of cash by that point and would have paid an extortionate amount in abortive fees to get a redesign / surveys etc...too late in the day.  A stadium doesn't get designed overnight, it takes years.

 

If this fails then we'll find out!

 

 

I remember reading this. He said he'd been told the deal was for Kings Links. From memory the council were willing to help relocate the golf driving range and let Aberdeen build there.

 

But Aberdeen have already responded to this in the application. As Tom Widdows has alluded to, building on the land would have issues, it's too small to include the training ground, and Aberdeen believe it'll cost them at least £6m more.

 

The person in question didn't know where it was. There were folk speculating and one saying the driving range would relocate if it could be done. I guess Douglas Craig is a friend of Milne since he was one of those doing the All For Aurora. There's nothing to get bulldozed or anything. Council could just lease us the land rather than us buy it since it would be very expensive?

[RicoS321]

 

I remember reading this. He said he'd been told the deal was for Kings Links. From memory the council were willing to help relocate the golf driving range and let Aberdeen build there.

 

But Aberdeen have already responded to this in the application. As Tom Widdows has alluded to, building on the land would have issues, it's too small to include the training ground, and Aberdeen believe it'll cost them at least £6m more.

 

£6M extra for Kings links? That's be a no-brainer. It's a 100 year development, nae a Stewart Milne house. Over the life of the stadium, £6M is fuck all. We could get half of that for Joe Lewis.....

 

The business case for the city centre location over Westhill is huge. We'd make that money back in no time.

 

I don't believe it was £6M different however. Must have been more than that.

[Dunty]

£6M extra for Kings links? That's be a no-brainer. It's a 100 year development, nae a Stewart Milne house. Over the life of the stadium, £6M is fuck all. We could get half of that for Joe Lewis.....

 

The business case for the city centre location over Westhill is huge. We'd make that money back in no time.

 

I don't believe it was £6M different however. Must have been more than that.

 

We'd make £6m back in no time? Yeh because generate that sort of profit regularly...

 

Aberdeen aren't going to make money at Kings Links any more than they will at Kingsford. It'll be much cheaper, in conjunction with the council, to improve the transport links to Kingsford.

 

[RicoS321]

We'd make £6m back in no time? Yeh because generate that sort of profit regularly...

 

Aberdeen aren't going to make money at Kings Links any more than they will at Kingsford. It'll be much cheaper, in conjunction with the council, to improve the transport links to Kingsford.

 

£448K profit last year, down on £542 the previous. That's with a crumbling old stadium dying on it's airse it seems, where the maintenance costs alone will cover the mortgage on a new place. So, yes, we would pay £6M back in no time. It's stupid to say otherwise, it's a building we'll have for the next century, so 10 years is a short time.

 

To improve the transport links to Kingsford to the level of that of walking distance from the city centre would be astronomical. You're talking mass transport like train or tram. £6M won't be covering it.

 

If it was £6M, which I doubt, then that money would be repaid within the first 15-20 years with extra gate receipts over Kingsford alone. I have no doubt that in 5 years time, Kingsford would struggle to cope with a downturn in form such as that of the Paterson era. Out of sight, out of mind, out of routine. The shite IKEA decaying by the side of the road. If Milne's building it, it'll look like Pittodrie within 15 years.

[Madbadteacher]

Should have built on Broad Street opposite Marischal College

[Garlogie_Granite]

The W.A.N.K.S. out in *force*  today. Less than a 100 of them there to spew their nonsense at the councillors.  Shambolic people.

[Dunty]

£448K profit last year, down on £542 the previous. That's with a crumbling old stadium dying on it's airse it seems, where the maintenance costs alone will cover the mortgage on a new place. So, yes, we would pay £6M back in no time. It's stupid to say otherwise, it's a building we'll have for the next century, so 10 years is a short time.

 

We don't have a debt, and interest payments to make on a debt, just now though. We will once the new stadium is built and adding £6m+ to it and saying "Yeh it'll be fine, we'll pay that off in no time" isn't a great business model and is incredibly naive.

 

You talk as if £6m isn't a big deal to Aberdeen. It very obviously is.

 

 

To improve the transport links to Kingsford to the level of that of walking distance from the city centre would be astronomical. You're talking mass transport like train or tram. £6M won't be covering it.

 

I never mentioned trains or trams. There's plenty of things they could do that are more realistic. For example one complaint is that these shuttle buses are only running from the city centre or park and rides, meaning people still have to travel to reach these buses. Build more park and rides, develop more bus routes to the stadium from other parts of town, link-ups with Inverurie and Stonehaven train stations so that there are shuttle buses to and from football specials.

 

 

If it was £6M, which I doubt, then that money would be repaid within the first 15-20 years with extra gate receipts over Kingsford alone. I have no doubt that in 5 years time, Kingsford would struggle to cope with a downturn in form such as that of the Paterson era. Out of sight, out of mind, out of routine. The shite IKEA decaying by the side of the road. If Milne's building it, it'll look like Pittodrie within 15 years.

 

If you look at how Aberdeen's crowds fluctuate when they are doing well and doing poor, they don't fluctuate that much. The main angst isn't how low they go when we're doing poorly, it's that they don't go high enough when we're doing well.

 

You mention the Paterson era. The average in 03/04 was 9,884. The average last season was 12,640. So call it 3,000 difference between doing well and doing poor. That's a core going to a crumbling stadium to watch rubbish football. If watching Ricky Foster and Zander Diamond didn't make them chuck it, then I don't think shuttle buses will. The amount of fans actually put off by extra travel to the stadium is going to be a very small number, and we're talking a couple of hundred at most, and even then they'll likely be won round. I don't see any real evidence that fans will refuse to add an extra 20-30 mins on their journey when 7,000 have just went to Murrayfield and 15,000 will travel down to Glasgow for a lunchtime kick-off.

[RicoS321]

We don't have a debt or interest payments to make on a debt just now though. We will once the new stadium is built and adding £6m+ to it and saying "Yeh it'll be fine, we'll pay that off in no time" isn't a great business model and is incredibly naive.

 

You talk as if £6m isn't a big deal to Aberdeen. It very obviously is.

 

No it isn't. On a turnover of £13-14M per annum it isn't. There's nothing naive here I'm afraid. We won't be paying £6M up front, it'll be spread over 30 years. Probably about £300K per year additional. It might be unattainable on top of other payments, but that's not the argument being made.

 

I never mentioned trains or trams. There's plenty of things they could do that are more realistic. For example one complaint is that these shuttle buses are only running from the city centre or park and rides, meaning people still have to travel to reach these buses. Build more park and rides, develop more bus routes to the stadium from other parts of town, link-ups with Inverurie and Stonehaven train stations - shuttle buses to and from football specials.

 

I didn't say you did, I'm saying that if you wanted to get Kingsford to the transport standard of the beach then you'd need trams or trains. Anything else is substandard compared to Pittodrie.

 

If you look at how Aberdeen's crowds fluctuate when they are doing well and doing poor, they don't fluctuate that much. The main angst isn't how low they go when we're doing poorly, it's that they don't go high enough when we're doing well.

 

You mention the Paterson era. The average in 03/04 was 9,884. The average last season was 12,640. So call it 3,000 difference between doing well and doing poor. That's a core going to a crumbling stadium to watch rubbish football. If watching Ricky Foster and Zander Diamond didn't make them chuck it, then I don't think shuttle buses will. The amount of fans actually put off by extra travel to the stadium is going to be a very small number, and we're talking a couple of hundred at most, and even then they'll likely be won round. I don't see any real evidence that fans will refuse to add an extra 20-30 mins on their journey when 7,000 have just went to Murrayfield and 15,000 will travel down to Glasgow for a lunchtime kick-off.

 

Yep, it's a decent argument. There is no evidence to say that the crowds will chuck it, I just believe that they are far more likely to. Putting that extra obstacle in the way will make it more likely. The fact that people attended Pittodrie during the Paterson era was because it was easy, or through habit. If I had been asked to get on a bus to Westhill, I probably wouldn't have renewed my season ticket during that time. I would still have gone, just not nearly as much.

 

The evidence of away support isn't a good barometer either, as it generally sits around 1-2K over a season. Those are either hardcore supporters who go home and away, central belters who only come up the road a few times a season and folk who are there for the pish up and day out that doesn't exist in Westhill every week.

[manc_don]

The wanks are claiming that there were 200 in attendance today, there is no way that doesn't take the councillors, press or police into account 

 

I'd hate to have seen the combined age of the protesters, must have been pushing 2000 years old.

[Dunty]

No it isn't. On a turnover of £13-14M per annum it isn't. There's nothing naive here I'm afraid. We won't be paying £6M up front, it'll be spread over 30 years. Probably about £300K per year additional. It might be unattainable on top of other payments, but that's not the argument being made.

 

The more you post about it the more you defeat your own argument that it will be paid off in no time.

 

You're now saying 30 years and £300,000 a year?

 

And all just so we're at the beach, which isn't by any means an ideal location anyway.

 

 

I didn't say you did, I'm saying that if you wanted to get Kingsford to the transport standard of the beach then you'd need trams or trains. Anything else is substandard compared to Pittodrie.

 

You don't need trains or trams to get to the standard of Pittodrie.

 

Firstly, you're overplaying how good the transport at Pittodrie is. The train station is a lengthy walk, by car it's in a horrible location. I'm not sure I've ever taken the tram to Pittodrie.

 

There are plenty of ways to improve the transport options to Kingsford without spending huge sums of cash.

 

 

Yep, it's a decent argument. There is no evidence to say that the crowds will chuck it, I just believe that they are far more likely to. Putting that extra obstacle in the way will make it more likely. The fact that people attended Pittodrie during the Paterson era was because it was easy, or through habit. If I had been asked to get on a bus to Westhill, I probably wouldn't have renewed my season ticket during that time. I would still have gone, just not nearly as much.

 

But you don't spent £6m extra on a stadium because you're worried that if you go through a bad patch a few thousand might not turn up.

 

How good the actual stadium is and the atmopshere generated becomes a big factor in attracting and retaining fans. Juventus' Allianz Stadium is a pain in the arse to get to, but the match day experience has clearly improved with the new stadium (yes, they have a good team which helps, but they've generally always had a good team but fans hated the Stadio Deli Alpi).

 

To get to Juventus home games, from Turin city centre you either have to get a bus which takes 40 minutes (and that's on a non-match day). Or, you get a 15-minute metro to Bernini station, then it's 15-20 minutes on a shuttle bus. Yet 40,000 odd manage it for every home game.

 

12,000 - 14,000 will be fine at Kingsford. We'll accept it's a bit of a pisser to get to, but it'll be worth it to see the Dons in a fantastic stadium.

[Garlogie_Granite]

The wanks are claiming that there were 200 in attendance today, there is no way that doesn't take the councillors, press or police into account 

 

I'd hate to have seen the combined age of the protesters, must have been pushing 2000 years old.

Absolutely laughable, clear from the pictures there was well less than 100

[jess]

 

12,000 - 14,000 will be fine at Kingsford. We'll accept it's a bit of a pisser to get to, but it'll be worth it to see the Dons in a fantastic stadium.

 

This is where I specifically totally disagree. I was slightly enthused by the idea of some superstadion that everyone would make the effort to go to. The stadium looks so average the mock ups suck the life out of me.

[jess]

 

You don't need trains or trams to get to the standard of Pittodrie.

 

 

You do need approximately 30 more bus lines running every 10 minutes.

[brunstanesheep]

Pisses me off these coffin dodgers, against anything and everything that benefits the majority. Backwards morons probably dont even realise the grandkids will benefit from the stadium. Anyway looking at the pictures half of them will be puahing daisies by time its built!

[RicoS321]

The more you post about it the more you defeat your own argument that it will be paid off in no time.

 

Nope, I don't. In the original argument I spoke of a stadium being for the next 100 years. Hence why "no time at all". The point being that it's fuck all in the scheme of things. A handful of Hayes's if you like. Absolutely worth it to make the correct decision.

 

You're now saying 30 years and £300,000 a year?

 

It was a suggestion, yes. They can fund it however they want. £6M over ten years would even be possible as clubs like the Arabs and Hibees have shown to their detriment.

 

You don't need trains or trams to get to the standard of Pittodrie.

 

Firstly, you're overplaying how good the transport at Pittodrie is. The train station is a lengthy walk, by car it's in a horrible location. I'm not sure I've ever taken the tram to Pittodrie.

 

The station is 1.2miles. It's a piece of piss. I didn't say you had taken a tram to Pittodrie, I'm saying you would have to build one in order to make Westhill as good a location as Pittodrie. Because it's a mass transport system. Which you'd need to transport that many people out of the city centre.

 

There are plenty of ways to improve the transport options to Kingsford without spending huge sums of cash.

 

No, there aren't. That's why they've never successfully implemented any at the existing stadium.

 

But you don't spent £6m extra on a stadium because you're worried that if you go through a bad patch a few thousand might not turn up.

 

Yes you do. That's exactly why you do it. If 3,000 less people turned up in a downturn, that would equate to £1.2M a season. That's 5 seasons worth of shite performances over the life of the stadium. I don't believe it would have that big an effect however, so let's half it and assume 10 seasons of shite fitba. We've had more than 10 shite seasons since Milne joined, so I think we could stretch to that.

 

How good the actual stadium is and the atmopshere generated becomes a big factor in attracting and retaining fans. Juventus' Allianz Stadium is a pain in the arse to get to, but the match day experience has clearly improved with the new stadium (yes, they have a good team which helps, but they've generally always had a good team but fans hated the Stadio Deli Alpi).

 

To get to Juventus home games, from Turin city centre you either have to get a bus which takes 40 minutes (and that's on a non-match day). Or, you get a 15-minute metro to Bernini station, then it's 15-20 minutes on a shuttle bus. Yet 40,000 odd manage it for every home game.

 

12,000 - 14,000 will be fine at Kingsford. We'll accept it's a bit of a pisser to get to, but it'll be worth it to see the Dons in a fantastic stadium.

 

There is no link between quality of stadium and your £6M figure as far as I'm aware. Ergo, the same stadium could be built at the beach, thus making a non-B&Q version of Kingsford for the additional £6M.

 

Juventus is a terrible example. They moved away from their home Stadio Comunale for the 90 world cup. The fans hated it. It's the equivalent of running yer stadium into the ground before telling everyone it's in a state of disrepair - no shit. For what it's worth, I think the pictures of Kingsford look okay.

 

 

[RicoS321]

Pisses me off these coffin dodgers, against anything and everything that benefits the majority. Backwards morons probably dont even realise the grandkids will benefit from the stadium. Anyway looking at the pictures half of them will be puahing daisies by time its built!

 

In what way will their grand kids benefit from the stadium? The training facilities perhaps, but arbitrarily having a stadium next to your hoose probably won't benefit their grand kids in anyway.