Aberdeen's new stadium

[jamamafegan]

According to Wikipedia, the population of Brighton & Hove is 256,000... the population of Aberdeen is 184,000. Plus, Brighton wil have waited 16 years for new stadium . Omens...

balls

[CityDave]

Does someone have a contract signed to build this stadium?. I assume its the Stewart Milne Group and also the training facilities Cove Rangers etc.

[HibeeJibee]

balls

check yourself if you like...

[jamamafegan]

check yourself if you like...

no, i believe you. twas said in disappointment.

[La_Leyenda]

Don't be utterly ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous.

If the top half of England were wanting to host it, who do you think they'd be more likely to join with... Scotland, or the other half of England?

Its not a case of the top half of England pushing to host it, and wanting Scotland to help them. Its a case of Scotland hosting it (opening game and final would be here) and offering the Northern cities of England the chance to join.

I would suggest Scotland could host three of the groups, and England the other three groups. By the time of the knock-out stages, Scotland could probably host the rest of the tournament alone, or at least the majority of it (six 2nd round matches, 2 in England).

Why turn our nose up at good facilties? If England fail to land the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, then its a relevant discussion and one which provides UEFA with a different alternative than England simply hosting it again, when Euro 96 is still seen as fairly recent.

How would it work for qualification - if they're providing half the stadiums, or more, surely they're going to want to qualify? And if they are, why wouldn't they just do it themselves (like they did in 1996)? Does UEFA even allow "unofficial" joint bids by parts of other nations anyway? Who finances it... Scotland alone? Scotland + northern councils?

Joint bids are not uncommon. I believe the 2012 one is set to be hosted by two countries.

It'll be a 24 team tournament by then, even more likely then that two hosts could qualify automatically, especially when one of the hosts is a seeded country (unlike 2012, which has two teams hosting who would perhaps fail to qualify if it was on foreign lands).

England I don't think would put up much of a fuss about Scotland being the main host when they need to spend next to nothing on facilties that are already in place, and would receive automatic qualification out of it. I would also suggest the UK government, ever keen to jump on a Unionist bandwagon, would welcome the chance of a joint bid (there is the opportunity aswell for Wales to use the Millenium stadium and host a group alongside Liverpool. Wales don't need to get automatic qualification out of it and I don't think they'd push for it either).

The Northern cities of England would receive the benefits that comes with hosting a major championship. I'm sure Middlesborough city council would be chomping at the bit to have games hosted there.

Does Dundee need a 30k-seat arena (or a new arena full-stop)?

With the innovations in football stadium design these days, it is possible to build temporary seating in a stadium, that can be reduced after the tournament.

If Dundee was left with a 20,000 (if that) seater stadium after the tournament, the city of Dundee would not only benefit from hosting games from the tournament, but it would become a perfect cup semi-final venue for when Aberdeen meet the Edinburgh sides, a Scotland venue for friendlies, and a venue for Rugby matches. It would no doubt also become a community stadium, something which Dundee could seriously do with. They do not compete at all with Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow for major events at the moment.

Granted, it would struggle to see half the capacity for most Dundee and Dundee United home games (thats not stopping Aberdeen building a 21,000 seater stadium) but for a derby it would be a fantastic experience.

It would also allow both clubs to sell their own curent grounds to which they could use the funds to pay off debts, or build a joint training facilty in the city of Dundee.

I think if Dundonians put their mind to it, they could get a hell of a lot of benefits out of a new stadium.

You could have suggested we co-host it with Brazil, it's as likely as having 5-6 out of 9-10 stadiums from northern England.

To quote yourself, "Don't be utterly ridiculous."

The North of England borders Scotland. I see no reason why Scotland can't increase its' border for a month. And if England have to get automatic qualfication with it, so be it, see the reasons above about how UEFA is unlikely to be stressed at the idea.

Put it this way, who are we likely to be bidding against? France are hosting the next one. Spain, England and Germany and Portugal are the only other countries capable of hosting it alone when it goes to 24 teams, Italy's recent Euros bid was thrown out and the logistics of Russia gives a lot of doubts.

Portugal have recently had it(and I'm not even sure if they're big enough for a 24 team tournament come to think of it - they would probably be looking to host with Spain), Germany have just had a world cup and either England or Spain will get the 2018 WC tournament.

What choice is there for UEFA? They just going to switch the tournament round three countries every four years? No, they're going to accept joint bids. A Scotland/North-England one would be far more appealing than another Dutch joint one, a Russian one, or a Scandinavian one.

Ultimately the Euros now requires 9-11 cities + 10-12 stadiums... even the 4 Celtic nations can't realistically raise that between them.

Its Six groups.

Group A (including Scotland) hosted by Glasgow(3 stadiums).

Group B hosted by Edinburgh(3 stadiums).

Group C hosted by Aberdeen/Dundee(2 stadiums).

Group D hosted by Newcastle/Middlesborough/Sunderland(3 stadiums).

Group E (including England) hosted by Manchester(2 stadiums).

Group F hosted by Liverpool, or Liverpool/Cardiff(2/3 stadiums).

I think you'd find it would be a very strong bid put forward.

[Captain_Sensible]

4 teams in each of Glasgow & Edinburgh?

[HibeeJibee]

La Leyenda ... so now we've got 3 stadiums in Glasgow, 3 stadiums in Edinburgh, 2 in Manchester ... the tournament is being hosted by us + the North of England + Wales ... there are only 9 or 10 cities in total, 3 of which are Newcastle-Middlesborough-Sunderland ... this is a joke, yes?

It would be impossible to run the tournament like that. You'd have the supporters of numerous countries all trying to get around and stay in 3-4 major cities ie Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester + the Tyneside area. You think it would = a strong bid ? It'd be the biggest joke in bid history.

The rules are clear and have good logic. You need 10-12 stadiums in 9-11 cities (and I think there would be objections to the 3 Tyneside cities in any case). Such a cobbled together shambles as you suggest is nuts, without discussing the practicalities of half of England joining with Scotland + perhaps Cardiff (hardly "northern" btw).

I'll say it again: hosting with "the North of England" is ridiculous, + will never happen.

[HibeeJibee]

4 teams in each of Glasgow & Edinburgh?

Apparently 4 teams in Glasgow, 4 in Edinburgh, 4 in Manchester, 4 in Liverpool (maybe), 4 split over Tyneside and 2 each in Aberdeen + Dundee.

Well, it's entertaining at least...

[Joe DiMaggio]

16 stadiums? I dont think so.

These are the minimum requirements from UEFA-

2 stadia with 50,000 seats

3 stadia with 40,000 seats

4 stadia with 30,000 seats

So only 9 stadiums needed. Hosting it with North of England would be laughed at but hosting it with Ireland would be a possibility as there are actually enough stadiums that meet the requirements already.

By putting in temporary seating many stadiums in Scotland could be upgraded and then reduced afterwards. Hampden, Ibrox, Parkhead, Murrayfield are all big enough already. That would leave only 5 more stadiums. Inverness or Falkirk could be upgraded with temporary stands, Aberdeen, Dundee another Edinburgh venue and possibly Kilmarnock also being expanded for the tournament would guve us more than enough.

If it were held jointly with Ireland we would potentialy only need to upgrade 1 or 2 stadiums to co-host it.

[HibeeJibee]

16 stadiums? I dont think so.

These are the minimum requirements from UEFA-

2 stadia with 50,000 seats

3 stadia with 40,000 seats

4 stadia with 30,000 seats

So only 9 stadiums needed. Hosting it with North of England would be laughed at but hosting it with Ireland would be a possibility as there are actually enough stadiums that meet the requirements already.

By putting in temporary seating many stadiums in Scotland could be upgraded and then reduced afterwards. Hampden, Ibrox, Parkhead, Murrayfield are all big enough already. That would leave only 5 more stadiums. Inverness or Falkirk could be upgraded with temporary stands, Aberdeen, Dundee another Edinburgh venue and possibly Kilmarnock also being expanded for the tournament would guve us more than enough.

If it were held jointly with Ireland we would potentialy only need to upgrade 1 or 2 stadiums to co-host it.

But you forget the 2 important points... [1] the 9 stadium thing is a minimum, it's very unlikely you'd win without 10 / [2] more importantly you're only allowed 1 multiple-venue city (2 if you use more stadiums than the minimum). And that's just to actually bid - nevermind have the best bid...

So it doesn't matter how many good stadiums are in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff or Dublin.

We're talking 9 cities. Which 9 cities?

Scotland can do only 4... Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee!! The Republican Irish can only do 3 realistically... Dublin, Cork, Limerick? The Welsh can only do 2... Cardiff and Swansea. The Northern Irish can only do 1... Belfast.

So the entire 4 Celtic nations between then can rustle up 10 - and we need at least 9. You can see the wheels beginning to fall off this already: you need to name reserves. What will 2nd reserve be? Kilmarnock? Galway? Wrexham? Portadown?

To meet the bare minimums to bid requires all 4 Celtic nations to work together. It'd never happen, and even if it did, it would never win bidding.

[La_Leyenda]

La Leyenda ... so now we've got 3 stadiums in Glasgow, 3 stadiums in Edinburgh, 2 in Manchester ... the tournament is being hosted by us + the North of England + Wales ... there are only 9 or 10 cities in total, 3 of which are Newcastle-Middlesborough-Sunderland ... this is a joke, yes?

Considering some of the shite you post on this forum, you've a hell of a cheek to label anyone else's opinion a joke.

It would be impossible to run the tournament like that.

Impossible, really?

You'd have the supporters of numerous countries all trying to get around and stay in 3-4 major cities ie Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester + the Tyneside area. You think it would = a strong bid ? It'd be the biggest joke in bid history.

Open your eyes a little.

I think its obvious 40,000 fans would not all stay in Glasgow.

Ask fans who travel to a World Cup or European Championship, people tend to stay everywhere. There's a whole central belt of Scotland where fans would be staying, up to Loch Lomond, down to Ayshire, etc. 4 teams' support wouldn't camp in the city for two weeks.

Even so, at the World Cup in 1998, Holland v Mexico was in St Ettience just two days after Scotland Morroco. Inevitably, there was overspiill, and there were thousands of Dutch and Mexicans there on the eve of the Scotland game to add to our support and the Morrocans, and plenty more were flooding in on the day of the game and even more that evening. There was also amazingly a large amount of French people - what they were doing there I've no idea, as presumably in every other major tournament that takes place the locals flee the country leaving empty cities for the fans.

Its also no easier than having the same amount of supporters travelling all around the country.

The rules are clear and have good logic. You need 10-12 stadiums in 9-11 cities (and I think there would be objections to the 3 Tyneside cities in any case). Such a cobbled together shambles as you suggest is nuts, without discussing the practicalities of half of England joining with Scotland + perhaps Cardiff (hardly "northern" btw).

Rules have been changed in the past and will again in the future.

The 3 stadiums in one city rule is there to stop most of the games being held in once city. That's not the case in the idea I explained above.

Cardiff was merely used as an example that the UK government may wish to throw them in there due to the facilities the stadium and city offers, as it may be seen to strengthen the bid, and is three hours from liverpool (and Wales itself is right next to it). It wasn't a deal breaker.

I think you've got confused and beleive I'm away to submit this bid to UEFA this weekend. It was only an idea in opposition to your doomsday scenario that everything is impossible and that if Scotland was to ever host anything the country would sink under water.

I'll say it again: hosting with "the North of England" is ridiculous, + will never happen.

You can say it a third time if you want, doesn't particularly mean you're right.

Apparently 4 teams in Glasgow, 4 in Edinburgh, 4 in Manchester, 4 in Liverpool (maybe), 4 split over Tyneside and 2 each in Aberdeen + Dundee.

Well, it's entertaining at least...

And why wouldn't it work?

In a 24 team tournament, you would not have a "group of death" scenario, so are unlikely to have a group where four teams with huge supports are involved.

You're likely to have two big countries and two who bring modest supports. Its actually quite rare for a country who qualify for a major championshsip to bring 20 000+. Most will do well to bring a few thousand.

Is Edinburgh happened to host a particularly impressive group and had Spain, Holland, Sweden and Ireland, would that really exceed some of the numbers Edinburgh already gets? Over 300,000 visit Edinburgh castle in the space of two months at the start of summer.

You'll also probably find that the amount of people in Glasgow would be less than the amount who will be there for the 2014 Commonwealth games.

[CityDave]

I just get the feeling Aberdeen are going to get the "Budget option", all this talk about capacity etc I just think where spending cuts are the fashion now people are going to be left dissapointed with the end result ( hope the hell I'am wrong). Again has the building contract been signed? as far as I'am aware only a council approval even with the land having green belt status has gone through and the rest of this is jumping the gun are football fans being kept in the dark or are we just getting ahead of of ourselves here.

[La_Leyenda]

Hosting it with North of England would be laughed at but hosting it with Ireland would be a possibility as there are actually enough stadiums that meet the requirements already.

So hosting it with an area that not only borders Scotland but can provide five large citires and up to seven venues is laughable, but hosting it with Ireland, with one city that has fit for purpose stadiums, and which is much harder to access due to its status as an Ireland, is a better possibility?

[HibeeJibee]

So hosting it with an area that not only borders Scotland but can provide five large citires and up to seven venues is laughable, but hosting it with Ireland, with one city that has fit for purpose stadiums, and which is much harder to access due to its status as an Ireland, is a better possibility?

Yes. Because the thing with England won't and couldn't ever happen... the Irish could.

The travel thing is a nonsense. They're in the EU etc. and it's a short ferry ride, flight, or drive through Northern Ireland (also part of the UK) from Scotland/northern England. However this is again a bit of a "paper exercise" because I don't see how Eire + Scotland can ever be in a position to host 24-team tournament. You're talking all 4 Celtic nations: or bust...

La Leyenda... I'm not wanting this thread to get diverted into a debate on Euro bids - so I'll leave it here. I'm simply saying that bidding with half of England won't ever happen - and multiple stadiums (often 3) in multiple cities will never happen. We've not got big enough cities anyway

Bidding with "northern" England is nuts (logistically + football-politically) and won't happen.

Unless Eire can come up with 4-5 stadiums in 4-5 cities, a Celtic bid is off too.

Anyway: back on topic.

[HibeeJibee]

Just as a final point on this: the bidders for Euro 2016 were France (12 stadiums in 11 cities - of which 9 or 10 will be used), Italy (12 stadiums + cities - of which 9 would be used) + Turkey (13 stadiums in 12 cities, of which 10 would be used). Russia will apparently also bid next time if they don't get the World Cup.

So even to EQUAL those sorts of bids, we'd need all 4 Celtic nations to unite + presumably need to be putting a couple of Wrexham / Kilmarnock, perhaps Thurles or Galway on the list. But there is no way such a hotch-potch, struggling to make the criteria, 4-nation bid would beat the rivals.

The message is straightforward - a Celtic bid would struggle to reach the vote, and would lose it. Bid with "northern England" will never happen.

[La_Leyenda]

Yes. Because the thing with England won't and couldn't ever happen... the Irish could.

The travel thing is a nonsense. They're in the EU etc. and it's a short ferry ride, flight, or drive through Northern Ireland (also part of the UK) from Scotland/northern England.

Yes, its easily accessible when your and your mates fancy going to Dublin for the weekend.

Its a different matter when 7 teams and their supports decide to descend there at the same time. Its not accessible by rail, or direct by car (unless going via boat) and would be expensive to fly to because flight prices would rocket.

You're hosting with a different Island. Funny how it was you who came up with that hilarious quip that we may aswell host with Brazil, yet suggesting this would work.

Bidding with "northern" England is nuts (logistically + football-politically) and won't happen.

I never said it was happening. I said it was the only way Scotland could realistically host a major championship.

If you presented your 4 nations Celtic idea to UEFA, and my Scotland/England one, the latter would get a lot further.

[Joe DiMaggio]

So hosting it with an area that not only borders Scotland but can provide five large citires and up to seven venues is laughable, but hosting it with Ireland, with one city that has fit for purpose stadiums, and which is much harder to access due to its status as an Ireland, is a better possibility?

No bid that tries to host with half a country would be excepted. England could just go it alone and if they were going to get selected as co-hosts then they could get selected as a solo bid. And obvioulsy Ireland would need to develop some stadiums in other cities but they have many large Galeic football staium around the country that could be upgraded.

Ireland could have 2 in dublin, which are already built. And 1 in both Cork and Limerick.

Scotland could have 2 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh, both built. Then Aberdeen, Dundee and either Kilmarnock, Falkirk and Inverness to spread it about.

[HibeeJibee]

Yes, its easily accessible when your and your mates fancy going to Dublin for the weekend.

Its a different matter when 7 teams and their supports decide to descend there at the same time. Its not accessible by rail, or direct by car (unless going via boat) and would be expensive to fly to because flight prices would rocket.

You're hosting with a different Island. Funny how it was you who came up with that hilarious quip that we may aswell host with Brazil, yet suggesting this would work.

Scandanavia got more votes for Euro 2008 than Scotland-Eire did... and they are intending to bid again. That's 4 independent countries - spread over a far wider area - seperated by language, distance, also by seas. And Norway isn't even in the EU. And they've 3 seperate currencies too...

If you presented your 4 nations Celtic idea to UEFA, and my Scotland/England one, the latter would get a lot further.

No it wouldn't!! The Scotland + "northern England" + 'maybe Wales too' bid would never make it to UEFA!! The FA wouldn't allow it... if they did, they would just bid themselves. The paper exercise of listing cities works, the actual practicality of it doesn't.

My point is both are pretty unlikely, but the Celtic idea might actually one day result in a bid. The "northern England" one never will. Scandanavia got more votes for Euro 2008 than Scotland-Eire did... and they are intending to bid again. They'll still lose to a single bidder, tbf.

[HibeeJibee]

No bid that tries to host with half a country would be excepted. England could just go it alone and if they were going to get selected as co-hosts then they could get selected as a solo bid. And obvioulsy Ireland would need to develop some stadiums in other cities but they have many large Galeic football staium around the country that could be upgraded.

Ireland could have 2 in dublin, which are already built. And 1 in both Cork and Limerick.

Scotland could have 2 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh, both built. Then Aberdeen, Dundee and either Kilmarnock, Falkirk and Inverness to spread it about.

But that's where it falls down. The first 2 are towns, both (Falkirk especially) not far from Glasgow + Edinburgh. Inverness isn't that big, and has a very small stadium currently, and would need a vastly improved rail link + road link + airport. And you've still only got 8 cities when you need 9. A Scottish town hosting Euros? Never.

Unless the Irish can find 5 cities (which I can't see... Galway perhaps - but now you're talking 3 total stadium reconstructions in reasonably small cities in SW Ireland) it doesn't fly. Now if you're having Scotland-Eire you'd be as well put the Northern Irish with Belfast in... but that's 3 nations, and still struggling to find enough cities + stadiums.

As I said before, even if you can meet the criteria - it would never threaten "proper" bidders.

[xaviermaw]

Its not ridiculous.

Its not a case of the top half of England pushing to host it, and wanting Scotland to help them. Its a case of Scotland hosting it (opening game and final would be here) and offering the Northern cities of England the chance to join.

England I don't think would put up much of a fuss about Scotland being the main host when they need to spend next to nothing on facilties that are already in place, and would receive automatic qualification out of it.

If Dundee was left with a 20,000 (if that) seater stadium after the tournament, the city of Dundee would not only benefit from hosting games from the tournament, but it would become a perfect cup semi-final venue for when Aberdeen meet the Edinburgh sides, a Scotland venue for friendlies, and a venue for Rugby matches. It would no doubt also become a community stadium, something which Dundee could seriously do with. They do not compete at all with Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow for major events at the moment.

Granted, it would struggle to see half the capacity for most Dundee and Dundee United home games (thats not stopping Aberdeen building a 21,000 seater stadium) but for a derby it would be a fantastic experience.

It would also allow both clubs to sell their own curent grounds to which they could use the funds to pay off debts, or build a joint training facilty in the city of Dundee.

To quote yourself, "Don't be utterly ridiculous."

The North of England borders Scotland. I see no reason why Scotland can't increase its' border for a month. And if England have to get automatic qualfication with it, so be it, see the reasons above about how UEFA is unlikely to be stressed at the idea.

Put it this way, who are we likely to be bidding against? France are hosting the next one. Spain, England and Germany and Portugal are the only other countries capable of hosting it alone when it goes to 24 teams, Italy's recent Euros bid was thrown out and the logistics of Russia gives a lot of doubts.

Portugal have recently had it(and I'm not even sure if they're big enough for a 24 team tournament come to think of it - they would probably be looking to host with Spain), Germany have just had a world cup and either England or Spain will get the 2018 WC tournament.

What choice is there for UEFA? They just going to switch the tournament round three countries every four years? No, they're going to accept joint bids. A Scotland/North-England one would be far more appealing than another Dutch joint one, a Russian one, or a Scandinavian one.

Its Six groups.

Group A (including Scotland) hosted by Glasgow(3 stadiums).

Group B hosted by Edinburgh(3 stadiums).

Group C hosted by Aberdeen/Dundee(2 stadiums).

Group D hosted by Newcastle/Middlesborough/Sunderland(3 stadiums).

Group E (including England) hosted by Manchester(2 stadiums).

Group F hosted by Liverpool, or Liverpool/Cardiff(2/3 stadiums).

You talk some pish by the way. One minute you are saying it is not a 'Joint Bid' but Scotland's bid with English councils helping out then you are giving England an automatic place, ala Joint bids.

Away and stop dreaming - no bid will happen ever in Scotland as you will be lucky to find a tournament that has ever had two stadiums as close as Edinburgh and Glasgow let alone 3 in EACH CITY!!!