The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[Aberdeen Cowden]

43 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

 

Standby for a massive deflection.

[falkirkthebigclub]

2 hours ago, naegoodinthedark said:

Living in Falkirk I contacted my local council (Falkirk Council, but let’s call them FC if that helps). Incredibly, they had no comment to make, as the decision on planning approval has nothing to do with them, because it’s not in an FC area!!

 

I’m starting to think that FC stands for Fucking c***s.

 

 

 

 

 

I am bored. The winter shutdown bores me.

 

That's quite accurate for Falkirk Council tbh.

[fatshaft]

13 hours ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Standby for a massive deflection.

Nope, my mistake, thought that quote was from a WFK person. Doesn't make it wrong of course, but hadn't seen it from AFC.

 

Now, about those massive deflections, helicopters, land speculation, not being able to walk on roads......still sticking to all that pish? 

[Aberdeen Cowden]

2 hours ago, fatshaft said:

Nope, my mistake, thought that quote was from a WFK person. Doesn't make it wrong of course, but hadn't seen it from AFC.

 

Now, about those massive deflections, helicopters, land speculation, not being able to walk on roads......still sticking to all that pish? 

Yes.

Now go back to bed, silly old man. Do you know which council area you live in yet?

[fatshaft]

43 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Yes.

Now go back to bed, silly old man. Do you know which council area you live in yet?

[fatshaft]

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/kingsford-project-chiefs-say-they-have-overcome-councils-main-objections-to-new-50-million-dons-stadium/?utm_content=buffer791c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Good news for Dons fans. Hopefully the city council see sense. 

[strichener]

26 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/kingsford-project-chiefs-say-they-have-overcome-councils-main-objections-to-new-50-million-dons-stadium/?utm_content=buffer791c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Good news for Dons fans. Hopefully the city council see sense. 

Hope someone has informed the guy with the baseball cap that he has the wrong council.

[COYR]

On 1/8/2018 at 05:05, Dunty said:

 

 

What you're all ignoring is Aberdeen need to increase the footprint (so it's not just a simple case of knocking down one stand and replacing it) and the pitch would essentially need moved, probably length wise too. 

So really, you would actually be knocking two stands down at once, and they would be the main and RDS. So about 9,500 off the capacity, all of the corporate facilities, new road layout, probably a re-routing of the drainage, water pipes and underground heating, and a brand new pitch.

Are you shouting random stuff in large sentences to make things seem problematic and hoping some of it sticks?

I've already explained how it's possible.

Knocking down the RDS fit are you on about min?

Knock down the south and have a capacity of 13,077 for about 6 games. Rebuild it and have a capacity of at least 16,844. The grass is already there for the pitch. The track and stands in the way is the issue. Nothing would need moved or any footprint expanded. Then knock down and rebuild the main stand, corporate based with a couple of rows for 18,000+.  Training facility is already nearly paid for. Build the stands with share issue/sponsorship/foundation of Hearts like - about £20m apparently of - Kingsford would be. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by COYR

[EdTheDuck]

8 minutes ago, COYR said:

Are you shouting random stuff in large sentences to make things seem problematic and hoping some of it sticks?

I've already explained how it's possible.

Knocking down the RDS fit are you on about min?

Knock down the south and have a capacity of 13,077 for about 6 games. Rebuild it and have a capacity of at least 16,844. The grass is already there for the pitch. The track and stands in the way is the issue. Nothing would need moved or any footprint expanded. Then knock down and rebuild the main stand, corporate based with a couple of rows for 18,000+.  Training facility is already nearly paid for. Build the stands with share issue/sponsorship/foundation of Hearts like - about £20m apparently of - Kingsford would be. 

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread it would be possible to re-route Pittodrie Street to accommodate a deeper re-built Mainer so that the capacity could easily be between 18,000-19,000 without doing much of anything at the King Street End.

The attitude among so many is almost typical dour North Easter which often translates as  'Can Do' being an alien concept, if 'them that kens'  say no then the sheeple fall into line like obedient fucking serfs.

Furthermore, the neglect of Pittodrie is definitely the fault of (at least) some of the board room incumbents so if there's addition costs they should spring for it.

IMO

[scoobles]

Hope someone has informed the guy with the baseball cap that he has the wrong council. [emoji38]

Half of those protesters will be dead by the time it's built.
Nae keen on Kingsford but would be funny to see those folk getting bent out of shape.

I think this is gonna end up going to various courts like the bypass did.

[COYR]

1 minute ago, EdTheDuck said:

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread it would be possible to re-route Pittodrie Street to accommodate a deeper re-built Mainer so that the capacity could easily be between 18,000-19,000 without doing much of anything at the King Street End.

The attitude among so many is almost typical dour North Easter which often translates as  'Can Do' being an alien concept, if 'them that kens'  say no then the sheeple fall into line like obedient fucking serfs.

Furthermore, the neglect of Pittodrie is definitely the fault of (at least) some of the board room incumbents so if there's addition costs they should spring for it.

IMO

There wouldn't be any need to do anything to the streets or increase the footprint etc to reach the capacities mentioned.

A far easier way to increase the capacity for domestic fixtures would be to make part of the new stands terracing/safe standing which I think holds 1.6 x as many people. Then bang, you've got the magic 20,000+ for Old Firm ( Stewartie) fixtures.

All a bit like KV Mechelen 

[EdTheDuck]

25 minutes ago, COYR said:

There wouldn't be any need to do anything to the streets or increase the footprint etc to reach the capacities mentioned.

A far easier way to increase the capacity for domestic fixtures would be to make part of the new stands terracing/safe standing which I think holds 1.6 x as many people. Then bang, you've got the magic 20,000+ for Old Firm ( Stewartie) fixtures.

All a bit like KV Mechelen 

Yes you do.

Your 16, 844 includes the Mainer as it is with around 4,000 seats. You're knocking it down which takes you back to about 13,000. A re-build with just 2,000 would be a capacity of 15,000 of thereabouts.6,200+3300+3500+2000)

[COYR]

10 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Yes you do.

Your 16, 844 includes the Mainer as it is with around 4,000 seats. You're knocking it down which takes you back to about 13,000. A re-build with just 2,000 would be a capacity of 15,000 of thereabouts.6,200+3300+3500+2000)

The 16,884 is without a main stand. 6220 in the RDS, 7290 in the south (a la Hearts who have used the minimum row and aisle widths), 3374 in the Merkland. 

https://i.imgur.com/K7pYMv1.jpg

[EdTheDuck]

1 minute ago, COYR said:

The 16,884 is without a main stand. 6220 in the RDS, 7290 in the south (a la Hearts who have used the minimum row and aisle widths), 3374 in the Merkland. 

https://i.imgur.com/K7pYMv1.jpg

Ah, ok, beg pardon sport.

[Dunty]

18 hours ago, COYR said:

Are you shouting random stuff in large sentences to make things seem problematic and hoping some of it sticks?

I've already explained how it's possible.

Knocking down the RDS fit are you on about min?

Knock down the south and have a capacity of 13,077 for about 6 games. Rebuild it and have a capacity of at least 16,844. The grass is already there for the pitch. The track and stands in the way is the issue. Nothing would need moved or any footprint expanded. Then knock down and rebuild the main stand, corporate based with a couple of rows for 18,000+.  Training facility is already nearly paid for. Build the stands with share issue/sponsorship/foundation of Hearts like - about £20m apparently of - Kingsford would be. 

So you're cutting the capacity of the south, keeping the pitch the same size even though it's not Uefa compliant, and bizarrely think you can increase the size of the main stand. Would love to know how you think you'll be managing that. Building outwards - you'll need to increase the footprint. Building upwards - expect a lot of rejections from residents.

Also, where's the £20m price tag come from? Did you just make up a random number?

 

17 hours ago, COYR said:

There wouldn't be any need to do anything to the streets or increase the footprint etc to reach the capacities mentioned.

A far easier way to increase the capacity for domestic fixtures would be to make part of the new stands terracing/safe standing which I think holds 1.6 x as many people. Then bang, you've got the magic 20,000+ for Old Firm ( Stewartie) fixtures.

All a bit like KV Mechelen 

Except the stadium won't be in Belgium, it'll be Scotland, where safe standing is 1:1 like at Celtic Park.

[Salvo Montalbano]

Except the stadium won't be in Belgium, it'll be Scotland, where safe standing is 1:1 like at Celtic Park.

Why does it need to be "safe (ugh, I feel dirty now) standing"? Terraces are perfectly fine for domestic games in the SPFL rulebook. Celtic put theirs in to revert to seating for European and International games but in many grounds in Germany they have proper terraces that have seating placed on top rather than that 1:1 nonsense Celtic have.

[Dunty]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

2 hours ago, Dunty said:

Except the stadium won't be in Belgium, it'll be Scotland, where safe standing is 1:1 like at Celtic Park.

Why does it need to be "safe (ugh, I feel dirty now) standing"? Terraces are perfectly fine for domestic games in the SPFL rulebook. Celtic put theirs in to revert to seating for European and International games but in many grounds in Germany they have proper terraces that have seating placed on top rather than that 1:1 nonsense Celtic have.

Terraces are not "perfectly fine" in the Scottish Premiership. The rules were relaxed about six years ago where clubs were allowed to introduce safe standing, but you have to apply for a licence to your local council. Currently all the top flight stadia are licenced as all seated grounds. Celtic eventually were granted permission by Glasgow City council.

Again, "they do this in XXXX country" is irrelevant, as 2:1 or 3:1 is not something that will be allowed here. The provision is 1:1. Aberdeen are not going to build a 15,000 capacity stadium but add on 5,000 through standing.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Dunty

[Salvo Montalbano]

Terraces are not "perfectly fine" in the Scottish Premiership. The rules were relaxed about six years ago where clubs were allowed to introduce safe standing, but you have to apply for a licence to your local council. Currently all the top flight stadia are licenced as all seated grounds. Celtic eventually were granted permission by Glasgow City council.
Again, "they do this in XXXX country" is irrelevant, as 2:1 or 3:1 is not something that will be allowed here. The provision is 1:1. Aberdeen are not going to build a 15,000 capacity stadium but add on 5,000 through standing.

If Queen of the South were to be promoted (or anyone else who has a terraced section), they would keep that open, they wouldn't need to get "safe standing". Terraces can get a safety certificate no bother as long as there are plenty entrances and exits, plenty of barriers and ways of ensuring that accurate counts can be made to avoid overcrowding. The council licence stuff is a nonsense put out by the people who make and install those rail seats.

[Dunty]

58 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

2 hours ago, Dunty said:

Terraces are not "perfectly fine" in the Scottish Premiership. The rules were relaxed about six years ago where clubs were allowed to introduce safe standing, but you have to apply for a licence to your local council. Currently all the top flight stadia are licenced as all seated grounds. Celtic eventually were granted permission by Glasgow City council.
Again, "they do this in XXXX country" is irrelevant, as 2:1 or 3:1 is not something that will be allowed here. The provision is 1:1. Aberdeen are not going to build a 15,000 capacity stadium but add on 5,000 through standing.

If Queen of the South were to be promoted (or anyone else who has a terraced section), they would keep that open, they wouldn't need to get "safe standing". Terraces can get a safety certificate no bother as long as there are plenty entrances and exits, plenty of barriers and ways of ensuring that accurate counts can be made to avoid overcrowding. The council licence stuff is a nonsense put out by the people who make and install those rail seats.

Right so Celtic didn't need to get permission from Glasgow City Council to install safe standing then? And it wasn't initially rejected, by Glasgow City Council, not once but twice? 

Maybe google it before replying.

[COYR]

6 hours ago, Dunty said:

So you're cutting the capacity of the south, keeping the pitch the same size even though it's not Uefa compliant, and bizarrely think you can increase the size of the main stand. Would love to know how you think you'll be managing that. Building outwards - you'll need to increase the footprint. Building upwards - expect a lot of rejections from residents.

Also, where's the £20m price tag come from? Did you just make up a random number?

 

Except the stadium won't be in Belgium, it'll be Scotland, where safe standing is 1:1 like at Celtic Park.

You've nae got a clue min. You can't follow posts at all. Everyone else can. I'm not wasting my time.