The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, thekorean said:

What is the benefit of new stadium if it isn't going to boost the attendance numbers? The location seems awful.

Probably to help them save money, have to put rakes of it just into maintaining Pittodrie

[Nightmare]

On 11/29/2017 at 16:11, Salvo Montalbano said:

While that's certainly true (and makes a mockery of announcing the attendance when it's no such thing) apparently it's done by all the clubs in the top two leagues so it's still comparing like with like.

It's absolutely not done by every club in the top two leagues.

Celtic, Hearts, County in the top flight that I can think of. Don't think anyone else does - or at least did last season. Haven't really paid much attention to attendances this season, so not sure if everyone else has started piling on. I'm pretty sure that along with ourselves, none of Killie, Well, Saints or Dundee do it. Aberdeen's fluctuating attendance seems to suggest they don't either.

Thistle definitely don't, though. We probably should, our crowds are diddy as f**k right now.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Nightmare

[Salvo Montalbano]

It's absolutely not done by every club in the top two leagues.
Celtic, Hearts, County in the top flight that I can think of. Don't think anyone else does - or at least did last season. Haven't really paid much attention to attendances this season, so not sure if everyone else has started piling on. I'm pretty sure that along with ourselves, none of Killie, Well, Saints or Dundee do it. Aberdeen's fluctuating attendance seems to suggest they don't either.
Thistle definitely don't, though. We probably should, our crowds are diddy as f**k right now.

I was just repeating what someone had said at a supporters meeting where it had been queried. Most folk I know think it's a farce (We had an "official attendance" or nearly 5,000 for a midweek match v Morton that had around 3,200 actually at the game) but it was said that it was the done thing to get more money in via sponsorship etc. It seems the norm in England too when you see the empty seats at Arsenal, Man City etc.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

5 hours ago, fatshaft said:

Not a developer, local farmer, direct sale to AFC

The developer is AFC! (SM)

[Darren]

2 hours ago, Dunty said:

But even if you were correct, even if building a 20,000 capacity stadium on that footprint was possible, because they're not selling the land they're starting without a good £15m-£17m of funds. They have to either play elsewhere for a year or sieve four years with reduced capacity while it's built stand by stand, so that's more money thrown away. 

And the fact you're wrong and Aberdeen will need to buy more land to increase the footprint, it would easily double the cost of Kingsford.

The new stadium and training facilities are meant to cost £50m. That's a lot of funds to make up, even generously assuming the land at Pittodrie goes for, say, £20m.

One stand is already in place at Pittodrie, there seems to be loads of space behind the stand opposite the main? I've no idea what you would do with the other two, though, which I guess is a major reason behind not redeveloping it.

[scoobles]

What is the benefit of new stadium if it isn't going to boost the attendance numbers? The location seems awful.

There may be benefits to the club but that's debatable.
The city centre suffers as travelling fans won't enter it due to location.
City based fans will still be stuck in buses whilst away fans are halfway to Dundee.
Midweek games will see lower crowds and winter/spring games will probably drop.
AECC would have been ideal but
..

[Dunty]

4 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

I might be missing something here but...

 

Isn’t there a 22,000 capacity stadium on the existing footprint already?

 

Which suggests that it might be at least possible to fit a 20,000 capacity stadium on it.

 

 

It was built over 100 years ago. Building regulations have changed a wee bit since then.

[Dunty]

2 hours ago, Darren said:

The new stadium and training facilities are meant to cost £50m. That's a lot of funds to make up, even generously assuming the land at Pittodrie goes for, say, £20m.

One stand is already in place at Pittodrie, there seems to be loads of space behind the stand opposite the main? I've no idea what you would do with the other two, though, which I guess is a major reason behind not redeveloping it.

There isn't loads of space behind the south, at least not since flats were built there, which would impact what height it could be if rebuilt.

The south is an old terrace with seats put in and is the biggest capacity at Pittodrie (just over 8,000). A rebuilt one, with modern building regulations like a concourse, stand gradients, emergency access etc, and the fact the pitch and run off areas need widened to meet Uefa standards, the capacity of that stand would be vastly reduced, likely by half.

They'd find it difficult to make up the capacity in the other stands as the Merkland would have the same problems as the south in terms of height, and we don't own the road behind the main stand.

A redeveloped Pittodrie is possible, but not without increasing the footprint and doubling the budget. The people who say "Milne doesn't want to do it" - yeh, he doesn't, because he can't afford to, and Kingsford is estimated to put the club £7m in debt (and that will probably rise). Picking a vastly more expensive project at Pittodrie, AECC or splitting the project onto two sites, and therefore massively increasing that debt, will put the club so far into the red we'll have major problems being anywhere near competitive on the pitch.

[Darren]

10 hours ago, Dunty said:

There isn't loads of space behind the south, at least not since flats were built there, which would impact what height it could be if rebuilt.

Show you how long it is since I was at Pittodrie. There was a lot of space behind there!

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Show you how long it is since I was at Pittodrie. There was a lot of space behind there!

Would that be back when Chris Robinson was telling us there was no way we could stay at Tynecastle as it wasn’t fit for purpose?

I can’t be the only Hearts fan who gets deja vu reading this thread

[EdTheDuck]

Don't know if this has been uploaded previously.

It's a re-build of Pittodrie designed by an architect that takes the capacity to about 13,000

What strikes me immediately is that it clearly does not take the re-build to the full extent of the 'footprint'. Could we get another few thousand in the South, Section Y and the King Street End?

ETA couldn't the club admin etc be built in the dead corner between RDS & Soother, that way the capacity of the main can be increased too

Edited December 9, 2017 by EdTheDuck

[fatshaft]

18 hours ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

The developer is AFC! (SM)

OK, how does AFC make a fortune then if that's what you meant? And the sale is subject to planning permission, if the stadium doesn't get approved then the Piries will keep their parks, so there's no "punt" involved.. 

[fatshaft]

On 08/12/2017 at 15:48, strichener said:

Once again, AFC's affordability has nothing to do with the suitability of a site from a planning and development perspective.  Their wish to have everything on a single site is a major reason why there are a lack of suitable sites.  Why does Aberdeen need to have a single site solution when it is clearly not the norm within professional football clubs.  If they cut the site size down to that  required for training facilities they would be opening up many more options. 

As for redeveloping Pittodrie - there is no way that it would not require a doubling of the budget.  Hearts have just managed to redevelop their main stand at a cost of £12million and in a smaller area of ground than AFC have at the moment.  Why would Aberdeen not manage to do the same?  Let's no kid on here - it isn't a case that Pittodrie cannot be redeveloped within AFC's budget but that they don't want to do it. 

It's not the norm because historically clubs didn't have fancy modern training facilities, but now that they do most havn't moved stadium because they were either able to redevelop on site or didn't need a new stadium at all.

Aberdeen have the chance here to get everything in one location which obviously make much better logistical sense, plus will save on costs by not doubling up on facilities therein.

 

As for redeveloping Pittodrie, there's some great work done by Tom-Widdows on Donstalk showing why a 12k capacity that the club keep referencing seems totally legit. 

 

[Dons_1988]

Don’t know if it’s been posted here but the club had pittodrie valued this year and took an impairment on the asset value of over £2m.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

7 hours ago, fatshaft said:

OK, how does AFC make a fortune then if that's what you meant? And the sale is subject to planning permission, if the stadium doesn't get approved then the Piries will keep their parks, so there's no "punt" involved.. 

Of course it’s a punt. Planning permission already refused (twice) for the site. It’s of little value  so any losses will be minimal.

How much would the site be worth if it were sold with outline planning permission?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

7 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Don’t know if it’s been posted here but the club had pittodrie valued this year and took an impairment on the asset value of over £2m.

Tax dodge most likely.

[lubo_blaha]

I am not convinced by the transport plan at all. It involves around 60-100 buses being used for every match, that seems nonsensical. Not only will the costs be high (£500 per bus per matchday quoted by one company in the application), the plans are based on every bus being at full capacity, including people standing. Another example; according to the transport plan they expect over 1000 fans to have got a bus out the ground before 10am for a midday kick-off against Celtic or Rangers. They want to transport 8000 fans every game by bus up and down that road. Is this really realistic? I've got a feeling that people will get sick of spending an hour round trip on a packed out bus just to get from the city centre to the stadium and back again.

To make matters worse, the on-site bar will only have capacity for 430 people, not the 1000 that was previously stated.

[Dunty]

13 hours ago, EdTheDuck said:

Don't know if this has been uploaded previously.

It's a re-build of Pittodrie designed by an architect that takes the capacity to about 13,000

What strikes me immediately is that it clearly does not take the re-build to the full extent of the 'footprint'. Could we get another few thousand in the South, Section Y and the King Street End?

ETA couldn't the club admin etc be built in the dead corner between RDS & Soother, that way the capacity of the main can be increased too

But 7,000 extra?

I don't buy the "just build it to 17,000, it'll be a better atmosphere" logic. We'd spend millions to then lose hundreds of pounds a year from a smaller capacity.

If we can't rebuild Pittodrie it to the same size as Kingsford, then it's time to move.

[Dunty]

1 hour ago, lubo_blaha said:

I am not convinced by the transport plan at all. It involves around 60-100 buses being used for every match, that seems nonsensical. Not only will the costs be high (£500 per bus per matchday quoted by one company in the application), the plans are based on every bus being at full capacity, including people standing. Another example; according to the transport plan they expect over 1000 fans to have got a bus out the ground before 10am for a midday kick-off against Celtic or Rangers. They want to transport 8000 fans every game by bus up and down that road. Is this really realistic? I've got a feeling that people will get sick of spending an hour round trip on a packed out bus just to get from the city centre to the stadium and back again.

To make matters worse, the on-site bar will only have capacity for 430 people, not the 1000 that was previously stated.

Yeh I agree the transport plan is shite, but only because like you say they're relying on just 100 buses and all coming the same busy route.

I suspect the club know fine well the buses won't be full to capacity and therefore it's pointless getting more. We all know, and the club know, fans will go by car and park in Westhill. Because why would you take the bus to the city centre then get another bus home when the car will do it in a quarter of the time?

Long term the only solution is more park and rides scattered around the city all heading straight to Kingsford.

[Dunty]

23 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Would that be back when Chris Robinson was telling us there was no way we could stay at Tynecastle as it wasn’t fit for purpose?

I can’t be the only Hearts fan who gets deja vu reading this thread

 

But you can't really compare the two.

It's obvious to all that there is/was plenty of space behind the main stand at Tynecastle and that with a bit of help from the council and rebuilding the school it was doable.

And, all Hearts had to do was build one stand, and had Murrayfield and Easter Road as back ups so didn't lose out on gate receipts.

For Aberdeen, they need a bigger footprint for a start, so they need that main road behind the main stand, probably the first two flats at that side too. That sorts the main stand. If they could increase the capacity of that then they could reduce the south stand one and maybe keep it at around 20,000. Maybe they could get away with leaving the Merkland for a few years.

That is still, at its cheapest, rebuilding two new stands and purchasing extra land. A conservative estimate of that would still be at least £25m. Not including the money needed to build the training ground which is the priority. And because we don't have another ground in Aberdeen to use, that project is probably two years, so two years playing at a reduced capacity and while the main stand is built it would likely mean European games elsewhere.

Maybe its doable. Maybe that's the plan B should Kingsford fail. But the fact remains, more land is needed, a bigger footprint. People who photoshop pictures of Tynecastle onto Pittodrie and say "see, plenty of room" are ignorant of building regulations at best and, generally, idiots.