Jump to content

The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, strichener said:

The less flippant answer is: 42 according to the bus strategy.  Even then the numbers are just plucked from the air especially if you look at numbers of trips against buses.

Thanks. I see these shuttlebuses are envisaged as making 68 journeys and carrying 5,715 people... that's 84 people per journey so they must be double-deckers with people standing?

They separately enumerate 280 people to travel by local service buses and 1,375 by "home support buses".

Where are these 42 buses & drivers coming from every other weekend and some weekday evenings?


Also all the above figures are for crowds of 14,250 i.e. only 2/3 of capacity. How will capacity crowds be transported? More shuttlebuses?


(Btw, their estimate of 18 home games per season is, I'd suggest, rather optimistic in a 38-game league with 2 cup competitions and possible EL commitments :lol:).

Edited by HibeeJibee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread and the entire situation pretty much sums up Scottish football. Spend 25 years moaning and bitching that your club have a shite budget only to reject the plan that gives you the budget because you can only have 2 pints instead of 5 before the game.

This stadium is a no brainer, genuinely mind boggling that any Aberdeen fan can be against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread and the entire situation pretty much sums up Scottish football. Spend 25 years moaning and bitching that your club have a shite budget only to reject the plan that gives you the budget because you can only have 2 pints instead of 5 before the game.

This stadium is a no brainer, genuinely mind boggling that any Aberdeen fan can be against it.


http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/Celtic+Park+-+Cambuslang+site+plans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

This thread and the entire situation pretty much sums up Scottish football. Spend 25 years moaning and bitching that your club have a shite budget only to reject the plan that gives you the budget because you can only have 2 pints instead of 5 before the game.

This stadium is a no brainer, genuinely mind boggling that any Aberdeen fan can be against it.

 

You think that building a 20,000 capacity in the back of beyond is going to give AFC the budget for... what? And why doesn't the current 20,000 capacity Pittodrie give AFC the budget for...whatever? Do you think that a re-built Pittodrie with a capacity of 18,000 rather than 20,000 in Kingsford would mean the difference between success and failure?

 

 

 

Edited by EdTheDuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

 


Cambuslang, Straiton, Hermiston Gait, Aurora....

I think Dundee May be the only real City in Scotland not to have seen one of these scams

 

Aren't Dundee talking about moving out to Camperdown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tartantony said:

This thread and the entire situation pretty much sums up Scottish football. Spend 25 years moaning and bitching that your club have a shite budget only to reject the plan that gives you the budget because you can only have 2 pints instead of 5 before the game.

This stadium is a no brainer, genuinely mind boggling that any Aberdeen fan can be against it.

Celtic should move 7 miles away to a place with no public transport and 4 hotel/restaurant pubs. Your own 430 capacity stadium bar. Increase your crowds. Give Brendan the budget he needs to compete in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, strichener said:

ACC don't need to contribute as AFC are already in the City.  The issue here is the insistence of AFC that everything needs to be co-located.  Drop that and I am guessing that Kingsford would have a greater than 75% chance of being approved as the training ground.

But if building in the city centre is going to cost Aberdeen more money then they are entitled to seek a cheaper alternative elsewhere. Therefore if that effects city centre trade, the onus is on the council to persuade them to stay. Rejecting Kingsford isnt going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TrebleTwenty said:

The AWPR is a bypass, it does not head towards the city, which can take you to the North or South, this road will quickly deal with fans that head in those directions. The A994 is the road that heads toward the city, which then Splits at the Kingswells roundabout, to the B9119, one towards the Langstracht, the other towards Hazlehead. Both these roads then join Anderson Drive at different points. Will there be some congestion? of course. will it be hours that the doomsayers are predicting, no. You can also head West, and some other backroads that lead into the sticks.  

As far as who is going where, how many is going where, how many stick around to drink in the club bar. who knows? It's guess work at best. 

I'm going to hazard a guess at 430 as that is all it will have capacity for. 

The entire home crowd minus 430 will be fighting their way to a bus or car at the same time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ACC turn down planning permission for Kingsford, what makes anyone campaigning for the redevelopment of Pittodrie think they’d suddenly bend over backwards to accommodate the club staying where they are. Have they not already said that they are against any development of the kings links because it’s land for the common good or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dunty said:

But if building in the city centre is going to cost Aberdeen more money then they are entitled to seek a cheaper alternative elsewhere. Therefore if that effects city centre trade, the onus is on the council to persuade them to stay. Rejecting Kingsford isnt going to do that.

Can't stop looking at this ^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ACC turn down planning permission for Kingsford, what makes anyone campaigning for the redevelopment of Pittodrie think they’d suddenly bend over backwards to accommodate the club staying where they are. Have they not already said that they are against any development of the kings links because it’s land for the common good or something like that.


Not sure but Kings Links is a complete non starter - tenants have it on a decades long lease and aren’t for cancelling it.
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...