The Aberdeen Mega-Hyper New Stadium Thread

[Aberdeen Cowden]

1 hour ago, fatshaft said:

 

Why will this walk be less pleasant than Union St to Pittodrie, or the boulevard area, or off the esplanade, or from Froghall for instance?

Why won't you be able to park at Westhill shops yet you can at Queens Links for instance?

Dunty seems to live in real world where direct comparisons can be made. 

 

Because there are parking restrictions at all the shop car parks. Having said that, they are full most days and certainly on a Saturday.

Why don’t you have a look.

Dream on guys.

[Aberdeen Cowden]

Just now, fatshaft said:

The opposite of that. Pittodrie is right through the city on single lane roads. Kingsford can be accessed from 5 directions, 3 of which are along dual carriageways. Care to explain why google is wrong as well? 

If Kingsford can be accessed from five directions, Pittodrie can be accessed from 50. 

Really cannot understand why some Dons fans are so keen to leave one of Scotland’s great stadiums, steeped in culture. OK it’s a bit tired looking but nothing that couldn’t be put right. Even walking to the stadium gives you a buzz, who would want to leave that.

Livingston’s soulless stadium still haunts me. 

Do you work for Stewart Milne ? Are you Stewart Milne?

[strichener]

55 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

The opposite of that. Pittodrie is right through the city on single lane roads. Kingsford can be accessed from 5 directions, 3 of which are along dual carriageways. Care to explain why google is wrong as well? 

That isn't even comparable.  If you are counting streets then Pittodrie can be accessed from far more of them than Kingsford ever will.  You just continue to ignore the pinch point of the A944 whilst incorrectly claiming that everything for Pittodrie needs to be via King Street.

[RiG]

In a stunning turn of events the economic impact assessment commissioned for Aberdeen FC wildly overstates the perceived benefits of building the Kingsford development according to a review of the case commissioned for the objectors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-42337697

That both of these assessments/reports supports their respective parties is a real shock.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by RiG

[strichener]

19 minutes ago, RiG said:

In a stunning turn of events the economic impact assessment commissioned for Aberdeen FC wildly overstates the perceived benefits of building the Kingsford development according to a review of the case commissioned for the objectors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-42337697

That both of these assessments/reports supports their respective parties is a real shock.

 

To me the real shock is that NKS have went to the bother of getting an external body to review the AGCC report, none of those involved with NKS can have primary school aged kids or they would have surely just got one of them to do the work.

However if ACC have shown anything in recent times, it is that they don't know how to manage money so there is a good chance that they would be taken in by it.

[1320Lichtie]

In a stunning turn of events the economic impact assessment commissioned for Aberdeen FC wildly overstates the perceived benefits of building the Kingsford development according to a review of the case commissioned for the objectors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-42337697

That both of these assessments/reports supports their respective parties is a real shock.

 

Concerns have included traffic and parking issues? Oh really, I’m shocked.

Get Dunty and FS round to talk them through it.

How would Aberdeen not be able to play European football by the way?

[fatshaft]

5 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

Concerns have included traffic and parking issues? Oh really, I’m shocked.

Get Dunty and FS round to talk them through it.

How would Aberdeen not be able to play European football by the way?

 

Concerns have also included terrorism, pipelines, otters, birds, floodlights stopping people sitting in their gardens at night, getting to the cinema, ambulances, a cairn of discarded beer cans at the shire/city border, traffic being at a standstill, traffic doing 80mph, the road being shut for 3 hours every Saturday, you know, actual real worries  

[RiG]

15 minutes ago, strichener said:

To me the real shock is that NKS have went to the bother of getting an external body to review the AGCC report, none of those involved with NKS can have primary school aged kids or they would have surely just got one of them to do the work.

However if ACC have shown anything in recent times, it is that they don't know how to manage money so there is a good chance that they would be taken in by it.

It makes perfect sense. AFC are essentially trying to argue that the economic benefits put forward in their report supporting the application override the planning and policies that would normally prevent such a development on greenbelt land. NKS will need to try and undermine that case and commissioning their own review of the AFC report is a way to do that.

I'm surprised that Aberdeen are trying to claim that (average) crowds at Pittodrie would drop by something like 40% if they stay there. There doesn't seem to be much reasoning behind this.

Edited December 13, 2017 by RiG

[EdTheDuck]

4 hours ago, fatshaft said:

The scale is based on distance and time.

 

Lang Stracht (Tesco) to Pittodrie 3.6 miles / 16 minutes

Lang Stracht (Tesco) to Kingsford 3.6 miles / 9 minutes

 

Google maps ken? 

If I ever have to combine my football activities with the need to purchase Vim that will come in handy, but generally not so much.

It’s apt that you used Tesco, though, because this move to the middle of nowhere is reducing the football club to the level of an out-of-town supermarket. “Turn up, buy our stuff, then f**k off”. Anything remotely resembling social activity or pretence at being part of the community is completely destroyed.

Middle of nowhere. Miles from anywhere. Terrible, terrible location and as you rightly point out Google Maps confirms the awfulness of it perfectly. Well done you.

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, RiG said:

It makes perfect sense. AFC are essentially trying to argue that the economic benefits put forward in their report supporting the application override the planning and policies that would normally prevent such a development on greenbelt land. NKS will need to try and undermine that case and commissioning their own review of the AFC report is a way to do that.

I'm surprised that Aberdeen are trying to claim that (average) crowds at Pittodrie would drop by something like 40% if they stay there. There doesn't seem to be much reasoning behind this.

The contradiction between your first sentence and the rest of the post made me chuckle.  There is no basis for the £8.5m economic benefit other than a reduction in attendance at Pittodrie to their lowest on record and an increase at Kingsford to an average attendance that Aberdeen have not see in more than 20 years, it does not need any independent analysis.

ACC also asked Aberdeen to perform an analysis of the money that would be lost to the town centre and the report states:

So it isn't economically realistic to expect Aberdeen to have an average attendance at Pittodrie of 13,083 and yet they do.  Or it isn't beneficial to Kingsford to show this???  It is the same throughout the entire report - Pittodrie = dire, Kingsford = Pots of Gold.

[strichener]

1 minute ago, EdTheDuck said:

If I ever have to combine my football activities with the need to purchase Vim that will come in handy, but generally not so much.

It’s apt that you used Tesco, though, because this move to the middle of nowhere is reducing the football club to the level of an out-of-town supermarket. “Turn up, buy our stuff, then f**k off”. Anything remotely resembling social activity or pretence at being part of the community is completely destroyed.

Middle of nowhere. Miles from anywhere. Terrible, terrible location and as you rightly point out Google Maps confirms the awfulness of it perfectly. Well done you.

But, but, but ...... a "fan zone" where AFC will be providing entertainment and fans will show up many hours before the game to spend their money.  Don't worry though as it won't be taking any significant amounts of money out of the town centre. (c) AGCC futher economic fairy tales for AFC - Oct 2017.

[DA Baracus]

49 minutes ago, RiG said:

It makes perfect sense. AFC are essentially trying to argue that the economic benefits put forward in their report supporting the application override the planning and policies that would normally prevent such a development on greenbelt land. NKS will need to try and undermine that case and commissioning their own review of the AFC report is a way to do that.

I'm surprised that Aberdeen are trying to claim that (average) crowds at Pittodrie would drop by something like 40% if they stay there. There doesn't seem to be much reasoning behind this.

Mental. The only reason the attendances would drop would be if they were doing shit. And they'd go back up again when they started doing better. 

It's almost as if the folk saying this shit don't really have much of a clue about how football works..

[shootingboots]

4 hours ago, Aberdeen Cowden said:

If Kingsford can be accessed from five directions, Pittodrie can be accessed from 50. 

Really cannot understand why some Dons fans are so keen to leave one of Scotland’s great stadiums, steeped in culture. OK it’s a bit tired looking but nothing that couldn’t be put right. Even walking to the stadium gives you a buzz, who would want to leave that.

Livingston’s soulless stadium still haunts me. 

Do you work for Stewart Milne ? Are you Stewart Milne?

Nostalgic nonsense IMO.

Not fit for purpose these days. 

Livingston's stadium is shit cos it's always empty.  

[Jute]

23 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

If I ever have to combine my football activities with the need to purchase Vim that will come in handy, but generally not so much.

It’s apt that you used Tesco, though, because this move to the middle of nowhere is reducing the football club to the level of an out-of-town supermarket. “Turn up, buy our stuff, then f**k off”. Anything remotely resembling social activity or pretence at being part of the community is completely destroyed.

Middle of nowhere. Miles from anywhere. Terrible, terrible location and as you rightly point out Google Maps confirms the awfulness of it perfectly. Well done you.

This.

Kingsford is an awful location for a stadium. No problem with building a training facility there but football is a social activity and having a stadium 7 miles from the town centre removes that. 

[RiG]

16 minutes ago, strichener said:

The contradiction between your first sentence and the rest of the post made me chuckle.  There is no basis for the £8.5m economic benefit other than a reduction in attendance at Pittodrie to their lowest on record and an increase at Kingsford to an average attendance that Aberdeen have not see in more than 20 years, it does not need any independent analysis.

I don't think there is any contradiction there whatsoever. Regardless of how spurious the claims are by AFC the fact is that they have been put forward by an economist which will carry some weight in the planning process which will benefit the applicants.

Mrs Phillips from Braecroft Cresent stating that she doesn't believe the figures with no detailed analysis and assessment of them won't give objectors much weight to their argument. However commissioning a professional critique of the original economic impact assessment will give any objectors a much stronger voice and lend their argument much more weight which is what NKS have done.

10 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Mental. The only reason the attendances would drop would be if they were doing shit. And they'd go back up again when they started doing better. 

It's almost as if the folk saying this shit don't really have much of a clue about how football works..

Can't help but feel that these bizarre figures were the results of a series of loaded questions which were asked of fans on the differing scenarios put to them and whether their support would continue. I doubt crowds would drop anywhere near as much as AFC claim especially if they maintain their form of the last couple of years.

[strichener]

10 minutes ago, RiG said:

I don't think there is any contradiction there whatsoever. Regardless of how spurious the claims are by AFC the fact is that they have been put forward by an economist which will carry some weight in the planning process which will benefit the applicants.

Mrs Phillips from Braecroft Cresent stating that she doesn't believe the figures with no detailed analysis and assessment of them won't give objectors much weight to their argument. However commissioning a professional critique of the original economic impact assessment will give any objectors a much stronger voice and lend their argument much more weight which is what NKS have done.

Can't help but feel that these bizarre figures were the results of a series of loaded questions which were asked of fans on the differing scenarios put to them and whether their support would continue. I doubt crowds would drop anywhere near as much as AFC claim especially if they maintain their form of the last couple of years.

No it actually isn't for NKS to probe and question the economic benefits, that is the role of the council in determining the application.  If AFC have based a case on specific criteria then they will obviously have the evidence to back this up.  I haven't seen any evidence of why the average attendance at Kingsford would be significantly more than Pittodrie nor why Pittodrie if it remains the home of AFC will see a greater than 40% reduction in attendance.   When looking at the report, the numbers may all make sense but if they are based on improbables then it undermines the entire report. 

[EdTheDuck]

1 hour ago, RiG said:

I'm surprised that Aberdeen are trying to claim that (average) crowds at Pittodrie would drop by something like 40% if they stay there. There doesn't seem to be much reasoning behind this.

I think they mean the capacity would fall by 40% (this is their claim that the South Stand, King Street End & Maine Stand would only manage 6,000 post-Pittodrie re-build), but I might be wrong.  Nothing would surprise me.

Playing European games in Dundee shouldn't really be a problem either, it wouldn't take much longer to get to Dens or Tannadice than it would to Kingsford so, y'know

[fatshaft]

3 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

I think they mean the capacity would fall by 40% (this is their claim that the South Stand, King Street End & Maine Stand would only manage 6,000 post-Pittodrie re-build), but I might be wrong.  Nothing would surprise me.

Playing European games in Dundee shouldn't really be a problem either, it wouldn't take much longer to get to Dens or Tannadice than it would to Kingsford so, y'know

Lang Stracht (Tesco) to Dens Park 66.4 miles / 84 minutes

[1320Lichtie]

Lang Stracht (Tesco) to Dens Park 66.4 miles / 84 minutes

 

Takes me longer to get from Harrison Park in Edinburgh to South Queensferry Road a lot of the time than it does getting from the Fife side of the Queensferry crossing to my Flat in the centre of Dundee but Google Maps won’t show that either

[fatshaft]

7 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

Takes me longer to get from Harrison Park in Edinburgh to South Queensferry Road a lot of the time than it does getting from the Fife side of the Queensferry crossing to my Flat in the centre of Dundee but Google Maps won’t show that either

No idea, but all those timings are pretty much what it takes. I don't see what the issue is? For sure from the Lang Stracht (Ed's preferred starting point) it'll take longer to get over the Brig o Dee alone than it will to get to Kingsford.