Jump to content

The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, COYR said:

A stadium across the road at King's Links was estimated at £42m in 2009. Rebuilding 3 stands at Pittodrie was estimated at £30m for 12,000 seats, which we've already been through.

The more recent King's Links cost estimates they gave when discounting the site as unaffordable, showed the cost due to the conditions of the area as actually only around £1m.

Part of Aberdeen council went along with the word of the club and their legal argument that it's up to the business to decide how much space they need. So they're able to discount the available land at King's Links, and anywhere, by saying they need way more than is there. Another part of Aberdeen council, and those that voted against it, argued the club were being inflexible and therefore not complying with the city centre first test, that they should build the stadium where there is space.

They also argued land could be allocated and made affordable through the LDP, rather than steamrolling it through a planning application, such as the swathes of land pictured. Could have even tied it in with turning the shitey pitches into a training centre in an area that needs it a la Man City, rather than the bizarre Man City for rich locals that we're doing.

mnxaKnf.png

Yeah that's about the only place in the city (urban) I could think of a stadium going. Wasn't sure if it would be big enough but going by your photo it would be. 

 

If only there was land available by Duthie Park. 

Edited by shootingboots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Illgresi said:

You stated " 407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land."

The straw man fallacy here is the argument that Kingsford was the only available land. It may well not have been the only available land. It was certainly shown to be the only feasible site. You've created an argument you can win, but completely failed to address the fact that no-one is arguing the points you're making; which is the definition of a straw man fallacy.

I'm sure they probably addressed each site's merits on the criteria I posted above (amongst many others no doubt). Doubtless almost all of them failed on point two.

So in short shootingboots is a straw man.  I am following correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, strichener said:

407 Acres and still people believe that Kingsford was the only available land.

If it's zoned for residential buildings, which if they're building houses on then it likely is, then it's around £325k per acre, as opposed to roughly 20k per acre which is what Aberdeen are paying at Kingsford.

You're basically criticising Aberdeen for trying to do this without liquidating the club.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dunty said:

If it's zoned for residential buildings, which if they're building houses on then it likely is, then it's around £325k per acre, as opposed to roughly 20k per acre which is what Aberdeen are paying at Kingsford.

You're basically criticising Aberdeen for trying to do this without liquidating the club.

 

Who owns this land and how much did they pay for it?

My criticism regarding the site would have been the same if Aberdeen had to borrow £100m or were promised the stadium for free.  It has absolutely nothing to do with cost and everything to do with location.

 

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, the philosopher said:

Surely Kings Links would have been the best option for fans.So close to the coast  probably a  lot of  infill costs  but not  unsurmountable . I'M not in the know but has Milne got got any self interest with any o the proposed sites ?

Oh jesus.

 

P1tT0dri3 4 fl4T5 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Who owns this land and how much did they pay for it?

 

You're joking right? Mr bloody know it all still doesn't know who owns the land despite it being brought up time and again, especially by that cowdenbeath neep? It's as bad as the aforementioned "why not kings links" pish.

For the final time, the Pirie brothers across the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

You're joking right? Mr bloody know it all still doesn't know who owns the land despite it being brought up time and again, especially by that cowdenbeath neep? It's as bad as the aforementioned "why not kings links" pish.

For the final time, the Pirie brothers across the road. 

Do we have to ask permission to post on your thread? You really are an annoying little person.

Are you related to Yule? That’s the sort of intelligent response he would make.

BTW I only asked who owned the land  once because I genuinely didn’t know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Do we have to ask permission to post on your thread? You really are an annoying little person.

Are you related to Yule? That’s the sort of intelligent response he would make.

BTW I only asked who owned the land  once because I genuinely didn’t know.

 

Always thought George Yule seemed alright in fairness. Speaks well whenever he's addressed the room when I've been corporate anyway. 

Edited by shootingboots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatshaft said:

You're joking right? Mr bloody know it all still doesn't know who owns the land despite it being brought up time and again, especially by that cowdenbeath neep? It's as bad as the aforementioned "why not kings links" pish.

For the final time, the Pirie brothers across the road. 

What a state to get yourself in.

It appears to be a common trait among supporters of Kingsford to lash out at anyone that dares ask any questions.  However, in this instance I will indulge you and take you through this verrrrrrry sloooowly so that you can understand who is being a "neep"

1. I posted about the 407 acres that were mentioned in an article posted on this thread.
2. Various straw men were built and deployed by Illgresi with you blindly cheerleading from the side-lines.
3. Dunty then posted a reply to my original post (helpfully including my post for you the idiots that cannot follow a thread) where he stated that as the 407 acres are classed as residential it would be more expensive than the Kingsford site (which again, anyone that can follow a thread will know has already had the owners of the site named).
4. I responded asking who owned the land and how much they paid for it. 

Now given that this all stems from my post that I mentioned at point 1 above, anyone with a modicum of intelligence would read this as referring to the 407 acres.  That I have to hand-hold you through a conversation whilst you throw insults about is actually quite comical, perhaps when your carer gets back from the shops you could ask them to increase your meds.

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, strichener said:

What a state to get yourself in.

It appears to be a common trait among supporters of Kingsford to lash out at anyone that dares ask any questions.  However, in this instance I will indulge you and take you through this verrrrrrry sloooowly so that you can understand who is being a "neep"

1. I posted about the 407 acres that were mentioned in an article posted on this thread.**
2. Various straw men were built and deployed by Illgresi with you blindly cheerleading from the side-lines.
3. Dunty then posted a reply to my original post (helpfully including my post for you the idiots that cannot follow a thread) where he stated that as the 407 acres are classed as residential it would be more expensive than the Kingsford site (which again, anyone that can follow a thread will know has already had the owners of the site named).
4. I responded asking who owned the land and how much they paid for it. 

Now given that this all stems from my post that I mentioned at point 1 above, anyone with a modicum of intelligence would read this as referring to the 407 acres.  That I have to hand-hold you through a conversation whilst you throw insults about is actually quite comical, perhaps when your carer gets back from the shops you could ask them to increase your meds.

1. anyone with half a brain surely understands the difference between land zoned for housing and that which is not, and their relative respective values? It was therefore a strawman argument, or...

2. Nope

3. I refer to you point 1

4. Asked and answered a few times in this topic, which you've been following minutely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Frank Grimes said:

If we had a quid for every time someone on this thread had mentioned the c*nting Kings Links we maybe could’ve afforded the land there 

Would probably cost you more than £26 TBF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...