Agm 113

[manc_don]

Our target is top 3!?!? 

 

The 113th Aberdeen FC Annual General meeting took place at Pittodrie on Monday evening.

 

After the formal business was quickly concluded, Chairman Stewart Milne spoke to the media and RedTV:

 

 

ON THE FIELD

 

"Like the manager and players and the fans, when reflecting on Sunday I think for one reason or another the team did not do themselves justice. We know Celtic are a good side but we are capable of doing a lot better than we did at Hampden. You feel for the fans as it is a long journey down there and by all accounts a pretty horrendous journey back as well.

 

"If we play to our capability, we are a match for any team. Obviously, everyone realises this season that Celtic have taken a massive step forward. They have invested heavily in a new manager and have reinforced their squad. We have to do our best to keep as close to them as we possibly can. It is always going to be a massive challenge keeping in touch, their wage bill is a multiple of ours. We have just to work extremely hard to try and grow Derek's budget as much as we can every year and then for the manager to make the best use of the resources available to him. And then to get the best out of these players as individuals and as a team. I think the manager has demonstrated over the last three or four years just how capable he and Tony are at doing that.

 

"Increasing the football budget is an ongoing thing. Everyone knows the economic climate has been fairly challenging up here the last two or three years and may remain the same for the next 18-24 months. We are very conscious that we are putting pressure on Derek to try and finish in the top three to qualify for Europe every year, to do well in the cup competitions so we have to make sure we are giving him as much money as we can to help him build as strong a squad as he can.

 

"We have to make sure we are building this club to be as strong as we possibly can and we have a team out there on the park who are hopefully in most games able to compete effectively and deliver the results that the fans are looking for.

 

"Getting to the final was more evidence of the progress Derek has made. The manager has reviewed the whole football operation and there are a lot of new people in place. He has brought a structure and organisation into the football side of the club that we have never had before. He has delivered results consistently over the past three and half years."

 

OFF THE FIELD

 

The Chairman revealed that the cost of the Kingsford Project will be in the region of £50 million.

 

"The important thing is that we tackle it in manageable stages. The focus at the moment is not on the stadium, it is delivering the community and training facilities. We know that we are going to have to raise £10 million for that and we have to try and raise the bulk of these funds by the middle of next year as we believe the planning application will be in front of council next summer. We are hopeful we will get the right decision on that front but no one is taking anything for granted. We want to have sufficient funds lined up so when we get planning through we can commit to start delivering the first phase. That is number one priority over the next 12-18 months.

 

"Once we get that on the ground it gives us a great platform to then move on and start the fundraising for phase two.

 

"If you don't believe you can raise the money there is no point in starting.

 

"We don't have all the answers to how the money will be in place but we have been working on plans for some time now. We are looking at how we can pull support on board. If we can raise the first £10 million we know that the sale of Pittodrie will be a good start for raising the £40 million needed for the stadium. We will be holding a share issue and will be selling the naming rights for the stadium. There will also be various other elements and the reality is that if there is a funding gap, the club will need to take on board a long-term mortgage on the stadium.

 

"As for the stadium plans, what we have done at this stage, we have not gone into all the details, such as if there would be a safe standing area. We have developed it so that we will have a capacity of around 20,000. We will have a stadium with all the corporate facilities we need and a stadium with the facilities the fans need inside and out in the fanzone. When we come down to developing the detail, and we won't be doing that for a few years yet, we will have had the feedback from some of the other clubs (such as Celtic) who will have been trialling safe standing. We would like to think by the time we finalise the plans for the stadium we will incorporate a standing area in it.

 

"I think a lot of people who had concerns initially are now supporting the move to Kingsford. The last poll was organised by one of the fans groups and something like 75% were in favour of the move and behind us. There will always be an element out there who will oppose it, whether it is the stadium or some other project. I don't think all the answers to the arguments we put on the table will satisfy these people because they have made up their minds. And people have the right to do that. The genuine people who have real concerns, we have spent a lot of time with them over recent months and we will continue to spend time with them to try and demonstrate we are going to come up with solutions within the areas they have concerns on. We have won a lot of people round by doing that in recent months and hopefully by the time we come to building the stadium we will have convinced most people.

 

"I think from the evidence to date, and from the public statements made by some of the councillors, they recognise the importance of Aberdeen Football Club to the city. The councillors recognise we have real issues with Pittodrie. They recognise the fact we have don't have proper training facilities. They see the importance of that in keeping a top management team and top players at the club. I would like to believe the will of the people in the city is behind this project. But we have to wait until it has gone through the full planning process."

[Edinburghdon]

Was reading that earlier and knew someone would pick up on that.

 

Really hope there's not uproar about it as I'm sure 3rd is only mentioned in relation to European qualification rather than what they're aiming for. . They've also done this for years, budgeting for a minimum position whilst aiming for better.

 

Know folk will read that and instantly think the club has filled over and accepted dropping back to 3rd and finishing behind rangers and Celtic but I'm utterly convinced that's not that case.

[rocket_scientist]

Was reading that earlier and knew someone would pick up on that.

 

Really hope there's not uproar about it as I'm sure 3rd is only mentioned in relation to European qualification rather than what they're aiming for. . They've also done this for years, budgeting for a minimum position whilst aiming for better.

 

Know folk will read that and instantly think the club has filled over and accepted dropping back to 3rd and finishing behind rangers and Celtic but I'm utterly convinced that's not that case.

 

That's strong. What "utterly" convinces you of this?

 

From a financial budgeting view, we know they aim low - that's just prudent - but what have you seen to be so apologetic about our club and so supportive of the board the WHOLE time?

 

You speak like you know more than us. Show evidence.

[RicoS321]

I am pretty convinced as well. It seemed to me that it was more a case of the fact that we're playing the huns at the weekend and it would be disrespectful (to our manager) to suggest that we should be absolutely finishing above them. We certainly have no right to, and I would expect Milne to have said the same if it were Hearts next to us. If McInnes wants to state that anything less than second is unacceptable, I'd be happy with that - but it's his choice to issue that call as manager, not the chairman's.

 

The reason I'm convinced is that Stewarty disnae like losing in anything he does. He would hate it if we finished behind the huns. He's also a grippy cunt, and if they chose to spend £1M in January, he wouldn't attempt to match it, but that's a different thing altogether.

[Edinburghdon]

I am pretty convinced as well. It seemed to me that it was more a case of the fact that we're playing the huns at the weekend and it would be disrespectful (to our manager) to suggest that we should be absolutely finishing above them. We certainly have no right to, and I would expect Milne to have said the same if it were Hearts next to us. If McInnes wants to state that anything less than second is unacceptable, I'd be happy with that - but it's his choice to issue that call as manager, not the chairman's.

 

The reason I'm convinced is that Stewarty disnae like losing in anything he does. He would hate it if we finished behind the huns. He's also a grippy cunt, and if they chose to spend £1M in January, he wouldn't attempt to match it, but that's a different thing altogether.

 

Not sure the next game had too much to do with the next game but agree with you about not matching the Huns spending if they splash out in January.  Probably an unpopular opinion but I wouldn't want them to if it puts us in a tricky position financially.

 

It's been a long hard struggle to get back to the financial situation we are in just now, mistakes that Milne oversaw (look at that, not apologetic...) but seems to be doing a good job of reversing now (better late than never).  if continuing to live within our means and strengthen as/when we can helps continue that them so be it, trying to match their unsustainable spending will just lead us into the same shite state as them, not ideal when we've got a stadium to fund.

[RicoS321]

I'd rather we didn't fund the stadium.... and I winna be buying into a rights issue. Cunts.

[rocket_scientist]

Facts.

 

We were never in debt until Milne and the building of the RDS.

 

He used that position to ingratiate himself to Baby Donald and get on to the board.

 

Once he had worn down Donald, he got the chairman role.

 

Under him, the debt escalated alarmingly and some might say, deliberately.

 

It got to eight figures which left us no option but to sell out only asset, Pittodrie.

 

The other Donald's came in with a huge cash injection to wipe the debt.

 

So let's not go sucking each other's dicks about what a good job Milne has done.

[Edinburghdon]

I'd rather we didn't fund the stadium.... and I winna be buying into a rights issue. Cunts.

 

Each to their own about the share issue. As far as moving goes I genuinely think it's the only option now... allowing the land around pittodrie to be developed ruled out having a modern stadium on the same site. That's just a fact now.

 

 

[RicoS321]

ruled out having a modern stadium on the same site. That's just a fact now.

 

No it isn't.

[tom_widdows]

No it isn't.

 

It is if they want 20000 capacity

 

If however you know of a way to make Pittodrie Street & Merkland Lane disappear then its a whole new ball game.

[rocket_scientist]

It is if they want 20000 capacity

 

If however you know of a way to make Pittodrie Street & Merkland Lane disappear then its a whole new ball game.

 

It is NOT a fact that Pittodrie can't be modernised.

 

There is an AGENDA here, one that exceeds 20 years. Whether some choose to ignore it or are so stupid not to see it or who trust everyone in perceived authority (where did that get the US and the UK on a MUCH bigger scale than a rat trying to make money out of a football club), this does not alter the facts and the fact is that a modern stadium CAN be built at Pittodrie.

 

Before you can say with authority that it can not be built, you must have specific architectural knowledge. Even a child's imagination can see a street going through a new main stand but why the fuck would that even be required given the ample room the car park gives for diversion? Why does that side of Pittodrie street even need to be open?

 

The ONLY change required at Pittodrie is the main stand. The other three do NOT offend any regulations.

 

By the way, you know that a safe standing area can be created at Pittodrie? They're selling this feature hard but if they really wanted to give us what we need, section Y can be dedicated for the cost of what, a couple of grand at most? Our chairman is a builder. We only need to rip the seats out of one corner.

 

 

[Ten Caat]

Pittodrie can be modernised....this is a fact.

 

The problem is it cannot be modernised to 20000 capacity in an economically viable manner.

 

As said before, there is ample room to reroute Pittodrie Street using the car park. If that were the only obstacle then it might just have been viable. However the problem lies in what lies under the road. Gas, electricity, water, sewers, phone and cable services would all have to be rerouted too and its  this that pushes Pittodrie redevelopment out of viability.

 

So lets all get behind the move once and for all. I will certainly be investing some shekels in the share issue.

[rocket_scientist]

Pittodrie can be modernised....this is a fact.

 

The problem is it cannot be modernised to 20000 capacity in an economically viable manner.

 

As said before, there is ample room to reroute Pittodrie Street using the car park. If that were the only obstacle then it might just have been viable. However the problem lies in what lies under the road. Gas, electricity, water, sewers, phone and cable services would all have to be rerouted too and its  this that pushes Pittodrie redevelopment out of viability.

 

So lets all get behind the move once and for all. I will certainly be investing some shekels in the share issue.

 

How can you say this unless you know how much would it cost to build it? Has the club looked at this question?

 

If a supposed benefactor pisses away £10m of his money giving it to AFC to wipe out the debt, then anything can happen. You think it was a gift to the club? Like nothing in return?

 

What about higher and steeper? We wouldn't need to build back onto the street. Given modern construction, we could do it on the exact same area space. The capacity is more than 20,000 now. We could have less seats in the Main but these are questions that have never been considered because the plan has ALWAYS been to relocate. Aye, ONE man's plan. He tried to get us to go to Kingswells TWENTY YEARS AGO. The paint was barely dry on the RDS, which HE built.

 

You won't get to take part in the shares issue. Only the original shareholders will. It will be a rights issue, not a public sale and guess who will pick up the shortfall when we who got mugged over 20 years ago refuse to get mugged again?

 

 

 

 

[cupidstunt]

Facts.

 

We were never in debt until Milne and the building of the RDS.

 

He used that position to ingratiate himself to Baby Donald and get on to the board.

 

Once he had worn down Donald, he got the chairman role.

 

Under him, the debt escalated alarmingly and some might say, deliberately.

 

It got to eight figures which left us no option but to sell out only asset, Pittodrie.

 

The other Donald's came in with a huge cash injection to wipe the debt.

 

So let's not go sucking each other's dicks about what a good job Milne has done.

 

Not quite facts Rocket.

 

Donald jr put us in debt, not Milne. That debt was to Milne for building a monument to his dad but that initial debt was solely down to Ian.

 

When Ian couldnt pay the debt he'd built up both for the stand and for the players he turned to Milne who then used it as a way to get himself on to the board and take control of the club. You cant blame him for that, he is a fan and AFC/Ian Donald was owe him £2m+.

 

Milne then went onto royal screw us with a mountain of debt and a multitude of bad decisions over the following 15-20 years.

 

Mind you, if Ian Donald hadnt handed the club to Milne, was still in charge and his business background is anything to go by the only difference we'd have seen over the last 20 years from Milne's tenure is we could add administration, relegation and possibly liquidation to the multitude of messes we've seen our club in over the last 2 decades.

 

Milne may have seen over a right few cock ups but personally I still think he saved the club from an even worse fate under Ian Donald. Obviously that is just guess work and cant be said with any real authority as it would require me to have advanced engineering skills and a grasp of physics that surpasses Einstein (to build a working time machine and create a new timeline with Donald in charge  ) and if I had those things I wouldnt be sitting here typing this type of nonsense into a message board at 8.17am.

[tom_widdows]

The ONLY change required at Pittodrie is the main stand. The other three do NOT offend any regulations.

 

The only stand which complies with current regulations is the RDS

The others do not comply with the current regulations which means they will eventually be forced to have their capacities restricted or at worse be closed. F

 

Some Building Regulations can be worked around but in 'non domestic' buildings this is very hard and the alternatives are oftern more costly.

Safety certificates, Licenses etc on the other hand will shaft the club eventually. They may have a stadium but they will only be allowed to let fans into one stand.

 

Hillsbrough thankfully destroyed the neglegence and ignorance of sports clubs, HSE etc when it came to stadium maintenance and design.

 

This discussion about pittodrie redevelopment seems to come around on an annual basis and it fascinates me the number of people (sometimes its the same ones) who come back either claiming things such as  3 sides of the stadium is fine or a modern 8000 seat & 3500 seat stands can be built within the same footprints as the South or Merkland/ Mains.

 

Yes you can have a road running underneath a stand. What you can't have is that road being a primary access to other peoples property especially when said property is residential.

[RicoS321]

Pittodrie can be modernised....this is a fact.

 

The problem is it cannot be modernised to 20000 capacity in an economically viable manner.

 

As said before, there is ample room to reroute Pittodrie Street using the car park. If that were the only obstacle then it might just have been viable. However the problem lies in what lies under the road. Gas, electricity, water, sewers, phone and cable services would all have to be rerouted too and its  this that pushes Pittodrie redevelopment out of viability.

 

So lets all get behind the move once and for all. I will certainly be investing some shekels in the share issue.

 

I won't get behind it, and it's that sort of pandering bullshite that put me off the new stadium (not the location, surprisingly). "We all need to get behind it". Seriously? Without asking basic questions? You were on dons mad, where there were 20, 400 post threads on the huns demise, with some intricate details and great challenging questions posed. We criticised the huns for net asking simple questions and believing ridiculous statements put out by their club, because of a ridiculous partisan feeling, rather than objectively looking at the statements. The "facts" about re-developing Pittodrie are exactly the same as the shite put out by the huns.

 

You have no evidence to back up the 20,000 capacity statement, because we've never been party to any. Unless you have some evidence that you can share? Look at the statement at the AGM about the new stadium: "we will have a capacity of around 20,000". So less than 20,000 then? Or, put another way, if money is tight it'll be the first thing that is reduced. We could easily end up with an 18K stadium that isn't even in our city (because it fuckin isn't). I'm cool with that, I'm not sure we need a 20K stadium anyway, but it does lead us back to Pittodrie. We've been told that Pittodrie would have to be reduced to 12.5K capacity in order to fit within the current site. Yet we've seen absolutely no evidence to back that figure up. We do know that if you removed the entire South stand, you would still have a 12.5K capacity. That suggests that the figure of 12.5K is absolutely ludicrous, or a lie. I'm going with lie. A lie of Dave King proportion. Or Dave Cameron proportion. It just doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny, and hasn't been backed by evidence. Why would this be? Because if the board produced a document that said we could only rebuild Pittodrie to say 17.5K or some other much more realistic figure, folk would really begin to question the move to a new stadium of "around 20K". Instead, they've given a 12.5K figure and provided no figures or drawings to back it up so that no-one would be crazy enough to suggest we stayed.

 

As to finance and services, we're raising 25M of non-stadium reliant financing (i.e. financing that could be raised even if we're staying: rights issue, stadium naming, mortgage etc) in order to move from Pittodrie. Whilst there might be services to be moved, I'm pretty sure that we could re-develop a significant volume of Pittodrie for that figure, so the question is, how much?

 

I have to admit, it's a fantastic play by Milne, and not necessarily a sinister one (I have no evidence to suggest it is, and I don't think it is). We've been told over and over and over that we can't re-develop Pittodrie to the extent that people now believe it, as the boy Orwell put it:

 

"But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

 

Yet none of has seen any evidence that backs up 12.5K figure - which is the key to it all.

 

I can accept that we're moving stadium, and I can even accept the shite location. I can't accept that we've been given the facts and that as a club and a support we've been given a choice. Moronic statements like "lets all get behind it" are the exact reason we end up with the politicians that we do, the inequality we do in this country and the reason that people up and down the country are trampled upon on a daily basis by people like Stewart Milne (caveat: I actually quite like Stewarty). It's partisan, unquestioning, insipid, spineless bullshit. The sort of behaviour I'd expect from thick huns.... I'm causing trouble a little here with those last two statements, I know, but I believe I'm right. If I'm not right, then show me why, with evidence. I'm ready to get right behind the club on the stadium move.

[RicoS321]

The only stand which complies with current regulations is the RDS

The others do not comply with the current regulations which means they will eventually be forced to have their capacities restricted or at worse be closed. F

 

Some Building Regulations can be worked around but in 'non domestic' buildings this is very hard and the alternatives are oftern more costly.

Safety certificates, Licenses etc on the other hand will shaft the club eventually. They may have a stadium but they will only be allowed to let fans into one stand.

 

Hillsbrough thankfully destroyed the neglegence and ignorance of sports clubs, HSE etc when it came to stadium maintenance and design.

 

This discussion about pittodrie redevelopment seems to come around on an annual basis and it fascinates me the number of people (sometimes its the same ones) who come back either claiming things such as  3 sides of the stadium is fine or a modern 8000 seat & 3500 seat stands can be built within the same footprints as the South or Merkland/ Mains.

 

Yes you can have a road running underneath a stand. What you can't have is that road being a primary access to other peoples property especially when said property is residential.

 

That is not evidence of a reduction in capacity to 12.5K though, is it? That's the point.

[Reidzer 1314]

It does worry me when Milne says that we will struggle to plug the funding gap and that we may need to place a long term mortgage on the new stadium.

 

I am sure the yearly payments on a mortgage of that size will be far greater than what we are currently turning over in profit at the moment, giving the sobering realization that the new stadium could delve the club back in to the red.

 

The training facilities are a must and thankfully Mr Milne seems to think we will raise the £10million required for that with no issues.

 

I remember my Dad went to a Black & Gold meeting earlier in the year and the question was posed to Mr Milne about redeveloping Pittodrie to which he replied that it would 'too expensive' to do so.

 

Personally I am all for the new stadium but I dont want it at the expense of the clubs current financial position.

[tamzarian]

 

 

I can accept that we're moving stadium, and I can even accept the shite location. I can't accept that we've been given the facts and that as a club and a support we've been given a choice. Moronic statements like "lets all get behind it" are the exact reason we end up with the politicians that we do, the inequality we do in this country and the reason that people up and down the country are trampled upon on a daily basis by people like Stewart Milne (caveat: I actually quite like Stewarty). It's partisan, unquestioning, insipid, spineless bullshit. The sort of behaviour I'd expect from thick huns.... I'm causing trouble a little here with those last two statements, I know, but I believe I'm right. If I'm not right, then show me why, with evidence. I'm ready to get right behind the club on the stadium move.

 

Agree with this.  What's really emerged for me, from the reaction of most Dons fans is that football fans on the whole are quite happy to swallow whatever nonsense they are fed by the club.  Portraying ourselves as somehow superior to Rangers fans, or fans of any other club, in this regard has been shown to be false.  IMHO.  Actually I shouldn't have been surprised by this, it's hard to think of any group of Scottish fans who have really managed to effect any meaningful change or significant opposition to what their club (or its representatives) are telling them.  The Hands Off Hibs campaign might qualify.  Annoyingly, England seems to have a slightly better developed tradition of fitba fans questioning / criticising their club.  AFC Wimbledon and FC United are obvious examples. 

 

AFC have reached the situation where 95% of their fans are utterly convinced that staying at Pittodrie isn't an option, without presenting any evidence beyond saying "it's too expensive".  It's an indicator both of the blind faith of fitba fans, and of a 20 year campaign of obfuscation (I'm not sure that's the right word BTW) undertaken by the club. 

[tom_widdows]

That is not evidence of a reduction in capacity to 12.5K though, is it? That's the point.

 

Are you looking for the club to pay for someone to to a detailed design of a redeveloped pittodrie showing exactly what is now permitted within the site boundaries?

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

Are you looking for the club to pay for someone to to a detailed design of a redeveloped pittodrie showing exactly what is now permitted within the site boundaries?

 

I think you're missing the point. He can speak for himself but like you, like me, none of us are in charge. We are only paying customers. The board make the decisions in our best interests. It's just that you shouldn't trust everyone all of the time and we should always question, question, question. It's how we learn. It's how we grow. It's how we succeed. Critical thinking skills can be learned. It is dependent on a growth mindset (ref: Professor Carol Dweck, Stanford) rather than the fixed mindset possessed by most.

 

As for the point about spending money to look at possibilities, to guarantee that we make the right decision, I can't remember most fans questioning the feasibility study. The infamous one. The one that Milne said would cost £600,000. And where did that lead? Exactly as a minority of us said it would, to fuck all. Money down the drain. More of our money, pissed away.

 

When a man stands as personal guarantor for a club's debt and he knows that Pittodrie is worth more than the total debt then he can walk away with no risk. The act of getting us to such debt puts pressure on our only asset. It's not like he's developing players with decent price tags. When the banks see the debt getting closer to the value of Pittodrie, they are under pressure to foreclose. Milne has always known AFC will never go bust. There's too many interested parties in the NE. But he's played a blinder in getting what he wants and in the process, the customers have been screwed big time. Unless the fans consider the "product" under his stewratship for the last quarter of a century to have produced good football? And it is that long that he's been fucking with our club, even though he's been chairman for less. There was a power vacuum. Ian Donald was a plug. Milne saw this, assessed the opportunity and took advantage. As always happens all of the time. I blame the board and the fans for never standing up to him. This is why I say we got the club we deserved. 

[RicoS321]

Are you looking for the club to pay for someone to to a detailed design of a redeveloped pittodrie showing exactly what is now permitted within the site boundaries?

 

No, I'm saying that in order to come up with a figure of 12.5K, then a design (not necessarily detailed, but a representation) of a redeveloped pittodrie must already exist. I'm just asking to be shown it (i.e. the evidence). Does that seem unreasonable to you? I think you have an understanding in this area (planning/building design), so do you think the figure of 12.5K is easy to come by without a suggested design (or even options)? I don't think you can throw a few figures in the air and come up with an accurate number given the sheer number of different stadium types and seating arrangements possible. I also think that the 12.5K is intentionally low so as fans don't think "well I actually wouldn't mind a 16/17(whatever)K seater stadium rather than move to Westhill". It looks to me like a figure chosen for it's absolute certainty of getting no backing, as only an idiot would want a 12.5K seater stadium rather than move.

 

The board are in no way obligated to show us anything or give a shite what we think, so I don't expect them to provide evidence. I just don't expect other dons fans to tell to "get on board" without it. I also don't think most fans have even asked themselves the question, they just take what is said as gospel and roll with it. I don't think that's healthy.

[cupidstunt]

As far as I can remember the redevelopment of Pittodrie was looked at before they decided to head to Kingswells back during Scotlands Euro bid. When looking to see what was available to do all they could do was to replace the stands and because of new regs and difficulty gaining planning permission etc thats where the 12500 capacity if Pittodrie was rebuilt came from.

 

When Scotland's euro bid failed planning permission for Kingswells was refused so we then looked at a site at the links. That was then refused planning permission...

 

We then had the Arena project in Cove, refused planning permission and now we're looking at Westhill.

 

 

[RicoS321]

As far as I can remember the redevelopment of Pittodrie was looked at before they decided to head to Kingswells back during Scotlands Euro bid. When looking to see what was available to do all they could do was to replace the stands and because of new regs and difficulty gaining planning permission etc thats where the 12500 capacity if Pittodrie was rebuilt came from.

 

When Scotland's euro bid failed planning permission for Kingswells was refused so we then looked at a site at the links. That was then refused planning permission...

 

We then had the Arena project in Cove, refused planning permission and now we're looking at Westhill.

 

Aye, those were indeed the series of events.

 

I was hoping for a little more detail....

[tom_widdows]

 

 

When Scotland's euro bid failed planning permission for Kingswells was refused so we then looked at a site at the links. That was then refused planning permission...

 

We then had the Arena project in Cove, refused planning permission and now we're looking at Westhill.

 

Planning permission was not refused for Kingswells nor was it granted. It was called in by the Scottish executive which means it is essentially lost in a world similar to Terry Gilliam's Brazil

 

No planning application was submitted for the Links development. It was speculative but never taken forward

 

Planning permission was granted for the Cove stadium only for a newly elected Aberdeen Council to revoke (not refuse, actually revoke) permission for the training facilities and Cove Rangers stadium development that was key to the whole project as it also contained one of the main access roads.