The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[COYR]

8 hours ago, shootingboots said:

It's not a coincidence that Hearts and now Hibs are attracting more fans along to games and grow their fan base - their grounds are far superior.

 They've had rejuvenating experiences with relegation, near liquidation, winning cups, promotion, have grounds in the very heart of where they represent and a local rivalry/crowd cock measuring contest. Our crowds have been big at points under McInnes too, in fact we seem to have no problem selling out important games at all.

Hibs average crowds in the years before relegation were 11,000. Hearts were 13,000. 

What an awful point.

8 hours ago, shootingboots said:

Some people don't get it though. They want to sit on seats bolted on to old terracing, or stand in a corner of the ground with no roof. Funny how it's always empty when it's raining though.

Maybe you don't get it. Lots of people enjoy football stadiums that aren't cinemas, in fact a big complaint about Pittodrie is the lack of atmosphere/terracing. 

8 hours ago, shootingboots said:

The state of the south stand toilets are an absolute joke as i'm sure any away fan would testify to.

You can go any time except the first 13 minutes of half time. Takes 2 minutes to queue for a shit at the turnstile end. What's the problem?

8 hours ago, shootingboots said:

The Merkland being the family stand have to utilise the space behind the goals for any pre match activities for kids - not even sure if they do the face paining etc any more, but the club could do so much more with a concourse like in the RDS.  I don't care for any of that stuff, but kids do, folk with kids looking to entertain them for a couple of hours do.

I loved the Merkland as a kid. The club could also move the family section if they wanted to. 

8 hours ago, shootingboots said:

The RDS is the only stand fit for purpose. 

Yet half empty. Strange how many people don't get it, or don't turn up for the fuhcilities

[fatshaft]

52 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Wouldn’t advise it in the dark., it’s not the distance that would be the problem, it’s being flattened by some idiot. And I’m a few miles away from Skene. 

TY for your advice. What I tend to find works is not closing my eyes so that I can both see where I'm going, and also what is coming towards me. Try it, it helps. 

[fatshaft]

51 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

More and more are becoming aware of it. Doesn’t matter though, the chairman won’t back off. Too much £ at stake.

Yes, lets get back to this. So, "the developer" is going to cash in.

 

Care to lay out how this "cashing in" is going to occur please? 

[fatshaft]

1 hour ago, COYR said:

Brain fart or no idea what you're talking about? The only thing that matters is how much space there is. Don't build it as high as Tynecastle, build it the same height as the south now if you want.

Yeah I think you've no idea what he's talking about. The same footprint and height as now = a much reduced capacity. 

[Dunty]

 

1 hour ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

Yes. £7m is nothing compared to what we’ll lose over a 30+ year period because of our location at Kingsford.

 

Fair enough, at least you admit it. But the club believe they can raise £43m of the £51m they need. Leaving them with a debt of £8m to pay off (and that's provided the costs don't rise).

Adding £7m to that would leave us with a minimum £15m debt. That's a best case scenario. I don't see how that is a good idea at all. 

It may well end up being an option. If it does, they believe they now only have enough for 526 parking spaces and 81 coaches. We'll be spending the same money on shuttle buses as Kingsford. The train station will be a long way off going by council standards. There'll be the same arguments over lack of bars (there's even less at Loirston). I don't think you can guarantee bigger crowds at Loirston over Kingsford either, especially if the bigger debt impacted on the playing budget.

Taking all that into account, explain to me how Loirston will make Aberdeen more money than Kingsford. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Dunty

[Merkie84]

The South Stand at Pittodrie has to be one of the worst stands in the top flight.

However, it is the only stand I would ever consider sitting in at Pittodrie.  It is home. 

Who are these people who are football fans but don't go because of the stadium or the facilities? I just don't get it. 

[COYR]

55 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

Yeah I think you've no idea what he's talking about. The same footprint and height as now = a much reduced capacity. 

No I'm well aware of what he thought he was talking about. He thought the steeper the stand the smaller the footprint.

As I showed you can fit a 7290 seat stand on that footprint with the concourse underneath it, which we don't have now.  It would be a much reduced capacity if the kiosks and toilets were behind the seating area as they are just now.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

No I'm well aware of what he thought he was talking about. He thought the steeper the stand the smaller the footprint.
As I showed you can fit a 7290 seat stand on that footprint with the concourse underneath it, which we don't have now.  It would be a much reduced capacity if the kiosks and toilets were behind the seating area as they are just now.

I think the argument is that you couldn’t build high enough because of housing that’s been built to the south


f**k knows how we got away with the Gorgie road Stand

[strichener]

21 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

I think the argument is that you couldn’t build high enough because of housing that’s been built to the south


f**k knows how we got away with the Gorgie road Stand

Probably due to the fact that loss of individual view is not a planning consideration.  Which is why I don't get the issue with the flats at Pittodrie and why this is constantly used as a reason for the restriction in height that would be in a re-developed stadium.

[COYR]

28 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

I think the argument is that you couldn’t build high enough because of housing that’s been built to the south


f**k knows how we got away with the Gorgie road Stand

 

Aye. I know that's what they're trying to say. I didn't say copy the Hearts stand or the height of it. The capacity is not related to the height or angle of the stand. It's still exactly the same footprint. So it could be the same height as the south currently is, which is still 5 metres smaller than it could be.  

Your Gorgie Road stand shows how close and tall it needs to be before you're blocking light. There's only a few rows taken out of one end to make up for it.  The flats behind our south stand already start 10 metres up a hill too.

[Dunty]

3 hours ago, COYR said:

No I'm well aware of what he thought he was talking about. He thought the steeper the stand the smaller the footprint.

As I showed you can fit a 7290 seat stand on that footprint with the concourse underneath it, which we don't have now.  It would be a much reduced capacity if the kiosks and toilets were behind the seating area as they are just now.

You're reducing the height and seats but still getting the same capacity? Good luck with that.

Are you ignoring the vast amount of space behind the main stand at Tynecastle, which wouldn't be there at Pittodrie? 

18 minutes ago, strichener said:

Probably due to the fact that loss of individual view is not a planning consideration.  Which is why I don't get the issue with the flats at Pittodrie and why this is constantly used as a reason for the restriction in height that would be in a re-developed stadium.

The RDS was meant to be built at the Merkland side and was rejected due to the height blocking the view of the flats, which is why it replaced the beach end instead. 

Hard to see us getting planning permission for a taller stand literally anywhere at Pittodrie other than at the beach end.

A revamped Pittodrie is realistically only possible by knocking the whole thing down and turning it 90 degrees. You *might* get away with that. But it's not worth the time worrying about it as could never afford to do it.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Aye. I know that's what they're trying to say. I didn't say copy the Hearts stand or the height of it. The capacity is not related to the height or angle of the stand. It's still exactly the same footprint. So it could be the same height as the south currently is, which is still 5 metres smaller than it could be.  

Your Gorgie Road stand shows how close and tall it needs to be before you're blocking light. There's only a few rows taken out of one end to make up for it.  The flats behind our south stand already start 10 metres up a hill too.

I was being disingenuous and sarcastic

 

South side stands block the light from the pitch as opposed to the buildings behind them (at least in this hemisphere)

 

The rows are actually taken out of the Gorgie because Hearts couldn't build on top of people's back greens.

 

 

[COYR]

15 minutes ago, Dunty said:

You're reducing the height and seats but still getting the same capacity? Good luck with that.

Are you ignoring the vast amount of space behind the main stand at Tynecastle, which wouldn't be there at Pittodrie? 

The RDS was meant to be built at the Merkland side and was rejected due to the height blocking the view of the flats, which is why it replaced the beach end instead. 

Hard to see us getting planning permission for a taller stand literally anywhere at Pittodrie other than at the beach end.

A revamped Pittodrie is realistically only possible by knocking the whole thing down and turning it 90 degrees. You *might* get away with that. But it's not worth the time worrying about it as could never afford to do it.

Reduce the height of the step between each row (the angle of the stand) and you have exactly the same space in as short a stand as you want.

There is much, much less space (actually very small) behind the stand at Tynecastle than the vast space shown to the sides and behind a new south for us. It's even used for access to other stands and got permission (surprise).

2 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I was being disingenuous and sarcastic

South side stands block the light from the pitch as opposed to the buildings behind them (at least in this hemisphere)

The rows are actually taken out of the Gorgie because Hearts couldn't build on top of people's back greens.

You're right. 

[COYR]

50 minutes ago, Dunty said:

 The RDS was meant to be built at the Merkland side and was rejected due to the height blocking the view of the flats, which is why it replaced the beach end instead. 

Is that a myth? Did they ask off the record because there was never such an application.

A new stand was rejected at the King street end 10 years earlier because it went into council airspace like at Tannadice.

Seems like the two have become mixed up.

Edited December 20, 2017 by COYR

[McDanger27]

I have no faith in the AFC board and I hold them entirely responsible for this quagmire (giggity). Hearts built 3 new stands almost 20 years ago. Hibs weren’t far behind. They are our contemporaries, what the f**k were we doing meanwhile?

Hearts and Hibs built these new stands out of necessity due to the neglect shown prior to the Taylor Report. Same can be said for Tannadice, Fir Park, Rugby Park etc. Back then Pittodrie didn’t have the alterations because the weren’t necessary and the required “improvements” were already in place. Perhaps If Pittodrie hadn’t had the seats bolted to the old terracing the same could have been said for Pittodrie and, out of necessity, perhaps we’d have had 3 new stands at the same time, and of similar proportions, rather than only the RDS. And all this before the flats appeared behind the South.

We are where we are now partly because of lack of development before Milne came on the scene. He of course hasn’t helped matters but I can help but feel an opportunity was missed at the point the RDS went up and a gradual development should have taken place at this time.

[resk]

The South Stand at Pittodrie has to be one of the worst stands in the top flight.
However, it is the only stand I would ever consider sitting in at Pittodrie.  It is home. 
Who are these people who are football fans but don't go because of the stadium or the facilities? I just don't get it. 

Exactly. Oh boo fucking hoo, I had to queue for a pie, this never happens at Old Trafford. Also I got caught in a wee bit of traffic on King Street and I didn't get home til 6.30pm. Get tae f**k you arseholes. f**k playing in a ground in the country next to a fucking bypass.

[Dunty]

2 hours ago, resk said:

 

Exactly. Oh boo fucking hoo, I had to queue for a pie, this never happens at Old Trafford. Also I got caught in a wee bit of traffic on King Street and I didn't get home til 6.30pm. Get tae f**k you arseholes. f**k playing in a ground in the country next to a fucking bypass.

 

So if Kingsford happens you won't be complaining then? Or is it only people complaining about Pittodrie that are arseholes?

[RussellAnderson]

Our new stadium was bouncing last night as Bristol City beat Man U in the Carabau Cup. Sounded like some atmosphere!

[shootingboots]

14 hours ago, COYR said:

 They've had rejuvenating experiences with relegation, near liquidation, winning cups, promotion, have grounds in the very heart of where they represent and a local rivalry/crowd cock measuring contest. Our crowds have been big at points under McInnes too, in fact we seem to have no problem selling out important games at all.

Hibs average crowds in the years before relegation were 11,000. Hearts were 13,000. 

What an awful point.

Maybe you don't get it. Lots of people enjoy football stadiums that aren't cinemas, in fact a big complaint about Pittodrie is the lack of atmosphere/terracing. 

You can go any time except the first 13 minutes of half time. Takes 2 minutes to queue for a shit at the turnstile end. What's the problem?

I loved the Merkland as a kid. The club could also move the family section if they wanted to. 

Yet half empty. Strange how many people don't get it, or don't turn up for the fuhcilities

What a load of pish. 

[lubo_blaha]

 
Fair enough, at least you admit it. But the club believe they can raise £43m of the £51m they need. Leaving them with a debt of £8m to pay off (and that's provided the costs don't rise).
Adding £7m to that would leave us with a minimum £15m debt. That's a best case scenario. I don't see how that is a good idea at all. 
It may well end up being an option. If it does, they believe they now only have enough for 526 parking spaces and 81 coaches. We'll be spending the same money on shuttle buses as Kingsford. The train station will be a long way off going by council standards. There'll be the same arguments over lack of bars (there's even less at Loirston). I don't think you can guarantee bigger crowds at Loirston over Kingsford either, especially if the bigger debt impacted on the playing budget.
Taking all that into account, explain to me how Loirston will make Aberdeen more money than Kingsford. 

For one, it would be within walking distance of a significant proportion of the city of Aberdeen. This is instead of being within walking distance of parts of two commuter towns, who predominantly don’t want the stadium to be there, and absolutely none of the built up area of Aberdeen.

Secondly, it’s less than half the distance from the city centre, even walkable at a push within an hour. Journeys of over 30mins and having to leave the centre of town at 2pm at the latest will put people off Kingsford.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the supporters bar at Loirston was going to be double the size of the one at Kingsford!

Parking issues could be alleviated by using the new school and nearby businesses (like at Kingsford) and not leaving 81(!) bus spaces free for when Celtic or Rangers come to town. We wouldn’t need the same number of shuttle buses at (£500 a go) as a lot more people would be within walking distance of the ground.