The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[Aberdeen Cowden]

6 hours ago, fatshaft said:

AC, you seem to be totally missing the point, purchase is dependent on receiving planning permission for the stadium. Planning consent would only be for the stadium. there's no punt here at all. The amount of land being bought and re-zoning being sought is solely for the football activities. You seem to think there's some cunning master plan that you're not expanding on?

Wasn’t the site at Counteswells originally going to be for a stadium? We all know what is there now.

Re Kingsford, just to be boring, again! The site was chosen because planning permission had already been refused(twice) for a driving range and housing. The site is of little value without permission to develop. So, an agreement between Mr X and the current owners was made to purchase. I don’t know for how much, but certainly for a fraction of it’s value. No doubt if permission isn’t given there will be some payment from Mr X to the owners but it will be sweety  money.

[fatshaft]

Just now, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Wasn’t the site at Counteswells originally going to be for a stadium? We all know what is there now.

Re Kingsford, just to be boring, again! The site was chosen because planning permission had already been refused(twice) for a driving range and housing. The site is of little value without permission to develop. So, an agreement between Mr X and the current owners was made to purchase. I don’t know for how much, but certainly for a fraction of it’s value. No doubt if permission isn’t given there will be some payment from Mr X to the owners but it will be sweety  money.

It was Bellfield. It's still 100% a farm.

Again, just to point out what you're not getting, you are correct, the land has no value except grazing, not even good for crops. However, planning is only being sought for the stadium, if that fails it will remain green belt. If it passes there will be nothing built except the football facilities. FYI the sum believed to be changing hands is £1m, considerably more than it's worth, which as you say is basically nothing. 

 

There is no "cash in" for the Dons on this. 

 

[fatshaft]

8 minutes ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

So, an agreement between Mr X and the current owners was made to purchase. I don’t know for how much, but certainly for a fraction of it’s value. No doubt if permission isn’t given there will be some payment from Mr X to the owners but it will be sweety  money.

My mind is boggling reading this again.

"Mr X" is AFC. The "Current Owners" are the Piries.

If permission isn't granted, "Mr X" won't be making any payments, sweety money or otherwise, as the deal is off and the land will remain grazing.

 

I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen if the stadium fails? If it fails it's because it will be outwith the LDP, if it's outwith the LDP, there is absolutely zero chance of any planning permission for anything else being granted, and not just because of the LDP, but because of the pipelines, there is absolutely zero chance of the land ever being housed over.  If you're thinking this is some convoluted plan to get houses built, it isn't. 

 

[gkneil]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

I stated that ACC were happy for AFC to move Pittodrie Street and some have stated that this is not the case.  Quite clearly the street has been moved even though the stend points are the same.  The relevant point is that ACC and specifically the roads department have not raised any objections on this part of the plans.  This shows that the council is willing to show a degree of flexibility around the site.

Just because ACC have said it is happy for Pittodrie Street to be moved, and a suggested layout for flats has been drawn up does not mean that the street can be moved to accomodate a re-developed Pittodrie. A re-developed Pittodrie, consisting of a 'sensible' capacity and also the additional facilities such as a larger club store, a club bar and a fan zone (all of which are part of the Kingsford proposal) would, in my opinion, require Pittodrie street to be shortnened, not moved, with no junction to Golf Road. Merkland Lane would possibly be needed too, again to allow for a new stand with a concourse area to be built in the existing stand's place.

The car parking on the opposite side of Pittodrie Street would either be lost or reduced. There would likely still be an issue with building a new Main Stand due to limits on the allowed height of a new structure by the existing housing.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

7 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

It was Bellfield. It's still 100% a farm.

Again, just to point out what you're not getting, you are correct, the land has no value except grazing, not even good for crops. However, planning is only being sought for the stadium, if that fails it will remain green belt. If it passes there will be nothing built except the football facilities. FYI the sum believed to be changing hands is £1m, considerably more than it's worth, which as you say is basically nothing. 

 

There is no "cash in" for the Dons on this. 

 

Who would be building the stadium?

Still think Pittodrie or as near as possible would be the ideal place. Dread to think what it would be like in the middle of nowhere waiting for a shuttle bus, or any kind of bus in weather like we are currently experiencing.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

9 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

My mind is boggling reading this again.

"Mr X" is AFC. The "Current Owners" are the Piries.

If permission isn't granted, "Mr X" won't be making any payments, sweety money or otherwise, as the deal is off and the land will remain grazing.

 

I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen if the stadium fails? If it fails it's because it will be outwith the LDP, if it's outwith the LDP, there is absolutely zero chance of any planning permission for anything else being granted, and not just because of the LDP, but because of the pipelines, there is absolutely zero chance of the land ever being housed over.  If you're thinking this is some convoluted plan to get houses built, it isn't. 

 

Agree about housing at Kingsford, would never happen. Pittodrie is the site for housing! Most folk know this.

[strichener]

8 minutes ago, gkneil said:

Just because ACC have said it is happy for Pittodrie Street to be moved, and a suggested layout for flats has been drawn up does not mean that the street can be moved to accomodate a re-developed Pittodrie. A re-developed Pittodrie, consisting of a 'sensible' capacity and also the additional facilities such as a larger club store, a club bar and a fan zone (all of which are part of the Kingsford proposal) would, in my opinion, require Pittodrie street to be shortnened, not moved, with no junction to Golf Road. Merkland Lane would possibly be needed too, again to allow for a new stand with a concourse area to be built in the existing stand's place.

The car parking on the opposite side of Pittodrie Street would either be lost or reduced. There would likely still be an issue with building a new Main Stand due to limits on the allowed height of a new structure by the existing housing.

Your points are all valid however the current position of Pittodrie St. is obviously not a red-line issue for the council.  The extent to which a stadium design would be acceptable and the required "assistance" required for ACC has obviously not been discussed by AFC and therefore no-one is in a position to state that redevelopment could take place.

[strichener]

13 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

My mind is boggling reading this again.

"Mr X" is AFC. The "Current Owners" are the Piries.

If permission isn't granted, "Mr X" won't be making any payments, sweety money or otherwise, as the deal is off and the land will remain grazing.

 

I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen if the stadium fails? If it fails it's because it will be outwith the LDP, if it's outwith the LDP, there is absolutely zero chance of any planning permission for anything else being granted, and not just because of the LDP, but because of the pipelines, there is absolutely zero chance of the land ever being housed over.  If you're thinking this is some convoluted plan to get houses built, it isn't. 

 

Are the financial arrangements on the re-development still the same?  70% to AFC and 30% to Milne and Gilbert?

[Ira Gaines]

Let's not forget fatshaft was the one that claimed that Jack Ross to Aberdeen was 100% a done deal. Not sure they have much merit on anything.

[fatshaft]

49 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

Let's not forget fatshaft was the one that claimed that Jack Ross to Aberdeen was 100% a done deal. Not sure they have much merit on anything.

That was tongue in cheek, I'd been spending too much time on facebook pages whjere there was a daily "deek sings at x-o-clock today".  I didn't change my audience setting 

 

Anyway, what exactly do you not agree with? Bellfield still being all farmland? The Piries taking the land back if the stadium doesn't get go ahead? There being no chance of any other planning if the stadium doesnt get the go ahead? What exactly does the above mean?

 

[fatshaft]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Are the financial arrangements on the re-development still the same?  70% to AFC and 30% to Milne and Gilbert?

This is a new one. No, all documents have shown the full proceeds are there to contribute towards the new development. Happy to admit I'm wrong if that's not the case but never seen that anywhere

[EdTheDuck]

[fatshaft]

1 hour ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Who would be building the stadium?

Still think Pittodrie or as near as possible would be the ideal place. Dread to think what it would be like in the middle of nowhere waiting for a shuttle bus, or any kind of bus in weather like we are currently experiencing.

Hasn't gone to tender yet has it? Wm.Donalds are doing the groundworks.  

 

It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's on a crossroads of dual carraigeways, actually be great for you. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by fatshaft

[Dunty]

2 hours ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Wasn’t the site at Counteswells originally going to be for a stadium? We all know what is there now.

Re Kingsford, just to be boring, again! The site was chosen because planning permission had already been refused(twice) for a driving range and housing. The site is of little value without permission to develop. So, an agreement between Mr X and the current owners was made to purchase. I don’t know for how much, but certainly for a fraction of it’s value. No doubt if permission isn’t given there will be some payment from Mr X to the owners but it will be sweety  money.

According to the stadium application it's £1.1m Aberdeen are paying for the land at Kingsford.

Current land at AECC is valued at between £15m-£24m, and is a lot smaller than Kingsford.

Which answers the question "Why don't they build it where the AECC is",

Edited December 11, 2017 by Dunty

[fatshaft]

1 hour ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

Agree about housing at Kingsford, would never happen. Pittodrie is the site for housing! Most folk know this.

OK, so we're still none the wiser why "Mr X" is going to make a killing at Kingsford then? Are you just going to go round in circles continually? 

[EdTheDuck]

8 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

Hasn't gone to tender yet has it? Wm.Donalds are doing the groundworks.  

 

It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's on a crossroads of dual carraigeways, actually be great for you. 

I drive past it twice a day going to and from work.

It's the middle of nowhere.

[Raidernation]

IIRC a big issue with rebuilding Pittodrie is emergency vehicle access and concourses for fan safety (part of modern H&S) for which there is no extra room. This is a big reason why you can’t just plonk a 20k seater on that footprint

[harry94]

Rebuilding Pittodrie would also be a nightmare for you guys as you would have to run the project in specific stages to keep the stadium open for the full time (not exactly anywhere nearby you could play for an extended period). Not impossible but again, it's another added complexity to what is already a really difficult project. I agree with the posters that are suggesting that it's possible in theory. You can definitely build a 20,000 seater stadium in that footprint, it's just going to be insanely expensive to do so.

It's the exact same issue we've got with Dens. The likelihood is that redeveloping the ground into the 21st century would end up costing more (or at least, raising that revenue externally is far far more difficult) and then not even come up to the same standards that can be met with a new build (in terms of income generating facilities). It's a nice idea but unfortunately, our clubs have made some really poor decisions with the handling of the stadium over the past years (i.e. I don't think Aberdeen worked to future proof the ground - no investment or consideration in the surrounding area; Dundee basically giving the ground away in a raffle) and it's kind of at the stage where it can't really be rectified. Hearts and Hibs put in considerable investment over a long time period and could handle the final stage of the rebuild.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, fatshaft said:

This is a new one. No, all documents have shown the full proceeds are there to contribute towards the new development. Happy to admit I'm wrong if that's not the case but never seen that anywhere

I remember reading it in the P & J when the original PAN was lodged.  I believe that both Milne and Gilbert had indicated that they were willing to contribute their share to the new stadium, after their debts were repaid.  I assume that this would have been through taking a further equity stake in AFC.

As things have changes significantly since then regarding Gilbert's involvement I was curious to know if this was still the case. 

[lionel hutz]

2 hours ago, harry94 said:

Rebuilding Pittodrie would also be a nightmare for you guys as you would have to run the project in specific stages to keep the stadium open for the full time (not exactly anywhere nearby you could play for an extended period). Not impossible but again, it's another added complexity to what is already a really difficult project. I agree with the posters that are suggesting that it's possible in theory. You can definitely build a 20,000 seater stadium in that footprint, it's just going to be insanely expensive to do so.

It's the exact same issue we've got with Dens. The likelihood is that redeveloping the ground into the 21st century would end up costing more (or at least, raising that revenue externally is far far more difficult) and then not even come up to the same standards that can be met with a new build (in terms of income generating facilities). It's a nice idea but unfortunately, our clubs have made some really poor decisions with the handling of the stadium over the past years (i.e. I don't think Aberdeen worked to future proof the ground - no investment or consideration in the surrounding area; Dundee basically giving the ground away in a raffle) and it's kind of at the stage where it can't really be rectified. Hearts and Hibs put in considerable investment over a long time period and could handle the final stage of the rebuild.

Except Dens has twice the potential footprint of Pittodrie. You could easily demolish the main stand and put the seats closer to the pitch and have a lot of room for a concourse etc.

Dens has a footprint of 27,034m²  despite only having 11,000 seats
Tannadice has 18, 587m²
The amount of usable land at Pittodrie is 26,275m² 

ETA: Kingsford has 164,000m²

Edited December 11, 2017 by Marr1