The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[COYR]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

3 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.

You're spot on. There are no requirements in any SPFL league now bar following the green guide. Celtic's is 1:1 because they don't have a step between each rail like the ones with higher ratios.

[Dunty]

36 minutes ago, COYR said:

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

If you believed the shite you posted, you would defend it. You choosing to leave it is probably your first sensible post.

[gannonball]

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

We only went for 1:1 to satisfy Glasgow city council as changing the capacity would have been more of a problem. Building it from scratch could well be different so I wouldnt say 1:1 is the rule.

[Salvo Montalbano]

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.

I didn't say they didn't need permission, merely that it's a barrier that is easier to overcome than people make out. The replies after mine would also suggest that maybe you're the one who should do a bit more research...

[COYR]

1 hour ago, Dunty said:

If you believed the shite you posted, you would defend it. You choosing to leave it is probably your first sensible post.

I explained it twice, with a fucking drawing of the actual map of Pittodrie and you still don't get it. 

You're an idiot min.

[COYR]

On 1/8/2018 at 12:25, topcat(The most tip top) said:

If Dunty doesn’t turn out to be a PR man in the pay of Stuart Milne I’ll be surprised, not shocked but surprised

I'm convinced it's either this or someone that really, really can't grasp anything, and read too much second hand expert opinion on Aurora fansites.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I'm convinced it's either this or someone that really, really can't grasp anything, and read too much second hand expert opinion on Aurora fansites.

It’s more the sense of deja vu back to previous experience at Hearts

I don’t think there was much in the way of Internet forums when Duff and Grey were trying to sell Meadowbank as the way forward for Hibs but if there had been then there’d have been a dunty cheerleading on them.

[Dunty]

58 minutes ago, COYR said:

I explained it twice, with a fucking drawing of the actual map of Pittodrie and you still don't get it. 

You're an idiot min.

Your explanation has the incorrect current capacities of each stand for a start, you think we can build a 16,000 stadium and just add loads of terracing to it to up the capacity, you haven't explained how you plan to rebuild the main stand without increasing the footprint, and you plucked a cost for it out of thin air.

Utter delusion. 

 

[COYR]

8 minutes ago, Dunty said:

Your explanation has the incorrect current capacities of each stand for a start, you think we can build a 16,000 stadium and just add loads of terracing to it to up the capacity, you haven't explained how you plan to rebuild the main stand without increasing the footprint, and you plucked a cost for it out of thin air.

Utter delusion. 

 

It's the final capacities from the June 2017 safety certificate. Please point me to the correct capacities.

I don't know why you're talking about increasing the footprint of the main stand. The capacity would be well reduced and only 6 rows, 4.8 metres deep, would hold 1200. What problem are you seeing here?

"you think we can build a 16,000 stadium and just add loads of terracing to it to up the capacity" 18,000 and you could convert some to increase it. What's the problem?

"and you plucked a cost for it out of thin air" from the cost of Hearts stand, since that's what it is.

[Dunty]

9 minutes ago, COYR said:

It's the final capacities from the June 2017 safety certificate. Please point me to the correct capacities.

I don't know why you're talking about increasing the footprint of the main stand. The capacity would be well reduced and only 6 rows, 4.8 metres deep, would hold 1200. What problem are you seeing here?

"you think we can build a 16,000 stadium and just add loads of terracing to it to up the capacity" 18,000 and you could convert some to increase it. What's the problem?

"and you plucked a cost for it out of thin air" from the cost of Hearts stand, since that's what it is.

So it's 18,000 now? Not a hope of building anywhere close to that without *increasing the footprint*.

You couldn't build Hearts main stand where the south is. You would get a 4,000 capacity stand there if you're lucky due to modern building regulations and no matter how much you deny it the pitch needs widened. 

Your 1200 capacity main means we're left with stadium holding less than 14,000. Brilliant. Sounds like a great plan. And £20m to do it? Yep, no idea why we're wasting our time with Kingsford when we could be doing that.

[EdTheDuck]

What a fucken tool

[COYR]

47 minutes ago, Dunty said:

So it's 18,000 now? Not a hope of building anywhere close to that without *increasing the footprint*.

You couldn't build Hearts main stand where the south is. You would get a 4,000 capacity stand there if you're lucky due to modern building regulations and no matter how much you deny it the pitch needs widened. 

Your 1200 capacity main means we're left with stadium holding less than 14,000. Brilliant. Sounds like a great plan. And £20m to do it? Yep, no idea why we're wasting our time with Kingsford when we could be doing that.

I can't believe you're really struggling this much. Surely you're trolling? 

18,000 now? First post

On 12/18/2017 at 06:20, COYR said:

16,884 for those 3 stands and if you got 6 rows of seating in a new stand on the other side that would be over 18,000. Lots of space opened up on the south side and the Merkland corner for fans to queue, mill about or evacuate and the necessary space for vehicles. 

Must be a much cheaper option too.

"You couldn't build Hearts main stand where the south is. You would get a 4,000 capacity stand there if you're lucky due to modern building regulations"

This isn't up for debate. This is the Hearts stand where the south stand currently is. Don't say the height shite again which I already explained.

What modern building regulations does Hearts stand not comply with?

[lubo_blaha]

So it's 18,000 now? Not a hope of building anywhere close to that without *increasing the footprint*.
You couldn't build Hearts main stand where the south is. You would get a 4,000 capacity stand there if you're lucky due to modern building regulations and no matter how much you deny it the pitch needs widened. 
Your 1200 capacity main means we're left with stadium holding less than 14,000. Brilliant. Sounds like a great plan. And £20m to do it? Yep, no idea why we're wasting our time with Kingsford when we could be doing that.

Which “modern building regulations” are these? Please list the specific legislation that you’re referring to as I can’t say I’m aware of this personally. What is the maximum capacity we could have from our current 22,199 footprint (circa 1500 of which can’t be used)?

[Dunty]

9 hours ago, COYR said:

I can't believe you're really struggling this much. Surely you're trolling? 

18,000 now? First post

"You couldn't build Hearts main stand where the south is. You would get a 4,000 capacity stand there if you're lucky due to modern building regulations"

This isn't up for debate. This is the Hearts stand where the south stand currently is. Don't say the height shite again which I already explained.

What modern building regulations does Hearts stand not comply with?

It's funny how professional architects have looked at it, some independent from the club, and believe a 14,000 rebuilt capacity at Pittodrie seems about right. But you're willing to ignore all that and say we can do stuff that isn't possible and anyone disagreeing with you is an idiot. You're some boy like.

"This isn't up for debate". Really? You're just making random shite up -  "we'll build this stand here, we'll stick it underground if we have to, it'll cost this much". 

I'll leave you to it. I don't think I'm capable of dumbing myself down to your level.

[Dunty]

9 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

Which “modern building regulations” are these? Please list the specific legislation that you’re referring to as I can’t say I’m aware of this personally. What is the maximum capacity we could have from our current 22,199 footprint (circa 1500 of which can’t be used)?

 

You call someone a "fuckin tool" then want them to explain building regulations to you? Nah, you can google it.

[Falcor Roar]

Think Dunty is on the ropes here. 

[sjc]

Hopefully this utterly shit idea of Aberdeen FC playing somewhere on the outskirts of the City is dead and buried now. 

[sjc]

22 minutes ago, Falcor Roar said:

Think Dunty is on the ropes here. 

I bet if he owned a JCB he'd be out at Westhill digging the foundations for the stadium right now.

 

 

[lubo_blaha]

You call someone a "fuckin tool" then want them to explain building regulations to you? Nah, you can google it.

I didn’t actually, that was another poster.

If you’re so confident of these views, list the regulations you’re referring to that mean Pittodrie can’t be redeveloped. If you could also show the work of the independent architects that you mentioned then that would be great too (preferably not someone just claiming to be an architect on donstalk).

[10menwent2mow]

I’m not going as far as dunty to say that Pittodrie definitely could not be redeveloped. However it would be an extremely challenging project, if we need to increase run off areas yet want to keep the RDS and Merkland stands as they are then we would effectively have to reduce the footprint of the stadium. Unless we are allowed to close Pittodrie Street. An aerial view of the ground shows that the last house in Pittodrie Street is pretty much aligned with the Main Stand at the moment. Are we just knocking that house down if we build a larger main stand?

I still believe loss of revenue to be the biggest stumbling block. The access to the South Stand is awful and I think we’d be restricted to keeping that pretty much as is with a rebuild due to the proximity of the flats to the current stand. Do we put corporate facilities in a new South Stand while we build a new main stand. Merkland is probably past it’s sell by date as well.

People continually mention hearts and hibs stadiums as the blueprint but having something like that would require knocking down the RDS as well, otherwise we’re always going to have a massively out of kilter stadium and anything build to the specifications of the current main stand will always look ridiculous next to the dick.

As I’ve said all along. I’m not sure Kingsford is the best but it’s certainly better than flushing a shedload of cash away on redeveloping Pittodrie with no income coming from the sale of the ground and retaining the requirement for separate training facilities.