The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[resk]

9 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

Mind you, as a supporter of a club who was once told by our board that our stadium was 'not fit for purpose' and we definitely had to leave it (spoiler alert - we didn't), I wouldn't be taking the assertion that they absolutely have to leave Pittodrie as gospel quite yet.

Aye, but this is a totally different situation.  Pittodrie is in breach of a number of UEFA regulations that definitely exist, and costs a billion mega-pounds a day to maintain.

[coprolite]

Put one of these on the beach. 

Put hospitality on a converted cruise ship to the East.

Might need a roof. 

 

[hk blues]

5 hours ago, coprolite said:

Put one of these on the beach. 

Put hospitality on a converted cruise ship to the East.

Might need a roof. 

 

What they make in hospitality will be needed to replace the balls they lose every game.

[coprolite]

36 minutes ago, hk blues said:

What they make in hospitality will be needed to replace the balls they lose every game.

Don't try to make out that i haven't thought this through. We simply train seals to work as ball boys. 

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

Don't try to make out that i haven't thought this through. We simply train seals to work as ball boys. 

[VincentGuerin]

9 hours ago, resk said:

Aye, but this is a totally different situation.  Pittodrie is in breach of a number of UEFA regulations that definitely exist, and costs a billion mega-pounds a day to maintain.

A story we know well.

Tynecastle was apparently not and never would be UEFA compliant, yet, here we are. The old stand was draining money and up-keep was going to kill us, yet, here we are.

Football clubs say whatever suits them at the time.

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Leith Green]

18 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

That's actually exactly the same situation.

Tynecastle was apparently not and never would be UEFA compliant, yet, here we are. The old stand was draining money and up-keep was going to kill us, yet, here we are.

Football clubs say whatever suits them at the time.

There are different levels of compliance depending on the UEFA competition and most of that relates to media facilities and VIP stuff etc which are fine at Tynecastle.

There isnt an issue (obviously) for the matches you have hosted this season but I believe that if Scotland hosted the EUROs that Tynecastle would be excluded - pitch needs to be 105 x 68 and they also require a minimum overall area of 120 x 80 m (including runoffs).*

Total hypothetical anyway, as we know that matches would be played "elsewhere".

 

*This from the technical requirements for EURO 2024.

 

[Frank Grimes]

19 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I wouldn't be taking the assertion that they absolutely have to leave Pittodrie as gospel quite yet.

I think it’s less likely now than at any other point in the last 20 years 

 

[naegoodinthedark]

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

Doesn’t look as fast as the ones at Celtic. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

34 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

There are different levels of compliance depending on the UEFA competition and most of that relates to media facilities and VIP stuff etc which are fine at Tynecastle.

There isnt an issue (obviously) for the matches you have hosted this season but I believe that if Scotland hosted the EUROs that Tynecastle would be excluded - pitch needs to be 105 x 68 and they also require a minimum overall area of 120 x 80 m (including runoffs).*

Total hypothetical anyway, as we know that matches would be played "elsewhere".

 

*This from the technical requirements for EURO 2024.

 

Anfield is a more dramatic example.
It's pitch isn't big enough to host a Euro's group game but there's been Champions League Semifinals on it

Of course it's been established at the World cup that after you've won the bid to host a tournament you can then just go back on all your commitments you made and do whatever you like so they could put a quarter final on the castle esplanade if they wanted

Edited December 9, 2022 by topcat(The most tip top)

[DukDukGoose]

22 hours ago, AJF said:

 

Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. While there may be additional income into the economy, I am unsure whether the council would be willing to foot the bill. If Aberdeen turned round tomorrow and said we have the funding for the stadium, will they be charged for use of the land? If not, then that would appear to be quite a big concession from the council hence their possible reluctance to put up further funds to help build it.

The council pleaded with the club to move the location of the new stadium to the new beach project. They were worried about the club taking business from the city centre every second weekend. This was after them previously rejecting a nearby location a couple of years ago which forced the proposed move to Kingsford.

Once the club and fans backed the proposal, the council then announce that the club need to fork out the full cost of the stadium.

[DukDukGoose]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

A story we know well.

Tynecastle was apparently not and never would be UEFA compliant, yet, here we are. The old stand was draining money and up-keep was going to kill us, yet, here we are.

Football clubs say whatever suits them at the time.

 

There's issues with the space around the ground if it's to be renovated. 

I can't remember the exact ruling but there's to be something like the size of the stand behind the stand, if that makes sense?

[Stellaboz]

54 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

The council pleaded with the club to move the location of the new stadium to the new beach project. They were worried about the club taking business from the city centre every second weekend. This was after them previously rejecting a nearby location a couple of years ago which forced the proposed move to Kingsford.

Once the club and fans backed the proposal, the council then announce that the club need to fork out the full cost of the stadium.

Aberdeen Council has been ruled by complete and utter idiots for years and years though. A city that should be a shining beacon of the oil and gas trade has instead just floundered for decades. 

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Merkland Red said:

The council pleaded with the club to move the location of the new stadium to the new beach project. They were worried about the club taking business from the city centre every second weekend. This was after them previously rejecting a nearby location a couple of years ago which forced the proposed move to Kingsford.

Once the club and fans backed the proposal, the council then announce that the club need to fork out the full cost of the stadium.

Cheers, that makes sense as to why it's being viewed that way.

[johnnydun]

5 hours ago, coprolite said:

Don't try to make out that i haven't thought this through. We simply train seals to work as ball boys. 

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

There are different levels of compliance depending on the UEFA competition and most of that relates to media facilities and VIP stuff etc which are fine at Tynecastle.

There isnt an issue (obviously) for the matches you have hosted this season but I believe that if Scotland hosted the EUROs that Tynecastle would be excluded - pitch needs to be 105 x 68 and they also require a minimum overall area of 120 x 80 m (including runoffs).*

Total hypothetical anyway, as we know that matches would be played "elsewhere".

 

*This from the technical requirements for EURO 2024.

 

Aye, clubs often rely on general ignorance or just obfuscation to make their loaded point. The implication from Hearts was that we couldn't play European games at Tynecastle in the future. This was almost certainly never true, looking even at some of the places we've played in Europe since the whole Murrayfield event.

For a club of our size, and this applies equally to Aberdeen, the issue of hosting a tournament match is unlikely to come up, as you say. As much as anything else, I wouldn't want it to. We'd need to increase the capacity to a minimum of 30,000. This seems not only pointless, but positively harmful. Same for Aberdeen.

I understand Aberdeen have space issues, but maybe it's cheaper to buy up what's needed than to build completely from scratch elsewhere? I suppose we'll find out.

[DukDukGoose]

27 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Aye, clubs often rely on general ignorance or just obfuscation to make their loaded point. The implication from Hearts was that we couldn't play European games at Tynecastle in the future. This was almost certainly never true, looking even at some of the places we've played in Europe since the whole Murrayfield event.

For a club of our size, and this applies equally to Aberdeen, the issue of hosting a tournament match is unlikely to come up, as you say. As much as anything else, I wouldn't want it to. We'd need to increase the capacity to a minimum of 30,000. This seems not only pointless, but positively harmful. Same for Aberdeen.

I understand Aberdeen have space issues, but maybe it's cheaper to buy up what's needed than to build completely from scratch elsewhere? I suppose we'll find out.

Cost may not be the only driver.

Away fan parking is behind the South Stand. That would need to go elsewhere during renovation. 

Merkland Stand has fairly newish builds behind them.

Main Stand has older, small houses that the homeowners have probabky resided in for decades, as well as the clubs parking lot.

[jamamafegan]

On 08/12/2022 at 12:32, eez-eh said:

What makes that ludicrous? Aberdeen’s average attendance hasn’t topped 16,000 for the last decade, and probably longer. Their highest crowds of the last few seasons are about 18,000.

You were on another thread saying that Ayr should be putting rail seating down at Somerset in case they qualify for Europe as well.

Aberdeen are more than capable of pulling in crowds of nearly 20,000 and have done so on numerous occasions over the past few seasons - usually against either of the OF or in European competition. By building a stadium of 18,000 the club are quite simply choosing to sell themselves short and lock supporters out of matches. As I've stated before on this thread countless times, it would make far more sense for Aberdeen to build a slightly bigger stadium (no less than 20,000) and design it in a way that you can close areas off without diminishing the atmosphere on a regular basis. A way to do this would be to build a two tiered stadium. Maybe make the upper tier smaller than the lower. For 'lesser' games you close the top tier and pack the fans into the lower areas. The added bonus with two tiers is that you have a stadium that looks as though some imagination went into it, it looks interesting and is exciting for fans to go to. Building a smaller ground when you know you have the fanbase there shows a real lack of ambition. Aberdeen should be aiming higher.

[Ray Patterson]

3 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

Aberdeen are more than capable of pulling in crowds of nearly 20,000 and have done so on numerous occasions over the past few seasons - usually against either of the OF or in European competition. By building a stadium of 18,000 the club are quite simply choosing to sell themselves short and lock supporters out of matches. As I've stated before on this thread countless times, it would make far more sense for Aberdeen to build a slightly bigger stadium (no less than 20,000) and design it in a way that you can close areas off without diminishing the atmosphere on a regular basis. A way to do this would be to build a two tiered stadium. Maybe make the upper tier smaller than the lower. For 'lesser' games you close the top tier and pack the fans into the lower areas. The added bonus with two tiers is that you have a stadium that looks as though some imagination went into it, it looks interesting and is exciting for fans to go to. Building a smaller ground when you know you have the fanbase there shows a real lack of ambition. Aberdeen should be aiming higher.

Get out of here with your common sense.

The other option, is of course to build a 16-18k seater with the option to relatively easily expand it to 20-25k in future.

But it seems that Aberdeen are set on backing themselves into as much of a corner as possible.

[jamamafegan]

11 minutes ago, Ray Patterson said:

Get out of here with your common sense.

The other option, is of course to build a 16-18k seater with the option to relatively easily expand it to 20-25k in future.

But it seems that Aberdeen are set on backing themselves into as much of a corner as possible.

Some examples of crowds over 18k:

Last season, Aberdeen vs Dundee United aka "Fergie Day" - 18,719

February 2019, Aberdeen 2 Rangers 4 - 19,190

July 2018 Aberdeen 1 Burnley 1 - 20,313

December 2018, Aberdeen 3 Celtic 4 - 20,027

July 2017, Aberdeen 2 Apollon Limassol 1 - 20,085 

There are loads more examples. And that's mainly just for Old Firm matches and European qualifiers.  What happens if Aberdeen make it to the group stages of European competition, such is their ambition? With the introduction of the Europa Conference League it's more likely than ever that Aberdeen could be competing in European group stage football in the coming seasons - possibly even next season given they are currently 3rd just now. You'd expect them to comfortably break the 18,000 barrier for all of those games. Everyone knows the fanbase is there - we all remember "Parkred" and the 40,000 Dons fans who descended into Glasgow. Why Cormack and the rest of the Aberdeen board can't see this completely baffles me.