Proposed new stadium, by Aberdeen beach

[shut up meg]

4 hours ago, NEM said:

They built the new ground out the back of the old one.  They physically couldn't have gotten any closer so no change to matchday routine, no sitting on shuttle buses for 2 hours etc.

He is surely on the wind up here, I have no interest in English football and even I knew that they built on the side of the old stadium and rotated the pitch.

If he isn't on the wind up, then he's as thick as MT and Shoofta

[strachanmcgheegoal]

On 4/20/2022 at 1:05 PM, fine-n-dandy said:

How much money has the club wasted over the past couple of decades on ‘feasibility studies’ planning & fancy video mock ups of new white elephant grounds? 
 

All that wasted cash could have been spent on playing budget.

Pretty sure I remember reading one year they had spent £600k on one of the planned projects 

The flip side arguement is/was always how much Pittodrie was costing us annually to stay, including of course, our inability to host group stage European matches, whatever they are.

[fine-n-dandy]

5 hours ago, strachanmcgheegoal said:

The flip side arguement is/was always how much Pittodrie was costing us annually to stay, including of course, our inability to host group stage European matches, whatever they are.

True but with the ‘continued’ insistence that we have to have a reduced capacity stadium to the extent that it is now fully accepted by the majority. There is a whole new argument/justification to just keeping DD stand & rebuild the other 3 at Pittodrie over a 3 year period. Got to be cheaper than £75k BS now & for similar reduction in capacity 

[Andy_123]

3 hours ago, fine-n-dandy said:

True but with the ‘continued’ insistence that we have to have a reduced capacity stadium to the extent that it is now fully accepted by the majority. There is a whole new argument/justification to just keeping DD stand & rebuild the other 3 at Pittodrie over a 3 year period. Got to be cheaper than £75k BS now & for similar reduction in capacity 

Nope. The Merkland and south stand are sinking into the ground. No Engineer will ever sign off on new building works while the ground immediately surrounding the ‘site’ is unsuitable, therefore those 2 stands would need to be completely demolished, the ground made up and started from scratch at the same time. The pitch is probably affected by these works as well. That’s before you begin to factor in issues like limited space to work in, the reduced capacity due to having to adhere to current building regs, having to pay VAT etc.

This has been pointed out so many times on here now.

[Ernie McCracken]

14 minutes ago, Andy_123 said:

Nope. The Merkland and south stand are sinking into the ground. No Engineer will ever sign off on new building works while the ground immediately surrounding the ‘site’ is unsuitable, therefore those 2 stands would need to be completely demolished, the ground made up and started from scratch at the same time. The pitch is probably affected by these works as well. That’s before you begin to factor in issues like limited space to work in, the reduced capacity due to having to adhere to current building regs, having to pay VAT etc.

This has been pointed out so many times on here now.

So  they're sinking, yet Dave wants to build a stadium closer to the beach! 

This new stadium is nae happening. 

[Andy_123]

2 minutes ago, Ernie McCracken said:

So  they're sinking, yet Dave wants to build a stadium closer to the beach! 

This new stadium is nae happening. 

Correct. That’s why it’s more expensive to build at the beach than Kingsford. The ground around there is all shite.

Have said all along the council have put AFC / Cormack between a rock and a hard place here because everyone would prefer to remain at the beach but the club can’t afford it, and the council aren’t going to make a contribution that will cover the additional money it’ll cost.

[RUL]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:34 PM, Andy_123 said:

Correct. That’s why it’s more expensive to build at the beach than Kingsford. The ground around there is all shite.

Have said all along the council have put AFC / Cormack between a rock and a hard place here because everyone would prefer to remain at the beach but the club can’t afford it, and the council aren’t going to make a contribution that will cover the additional money it’ll cost.

So why continue to push it? He must know we couldn't afford a £40M stadium, there's no danger we can afford a £75M stadium.

[zeroisgod76]

48 minutes ago, RUL said:

So why continue to push it? He must know we couldn't afford a £40M stadium, there's no danger we can afford a £75M stadium.

He's just trying to appeal to the lowest denominator. Keep them thinking there's a chance they can still stagger from the pub to a ground at the beach before inevitably building at Kingsford when the council backs out (which they will).

 

[CCB III]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:34 PM, Andy_123 said:

Correct. That’s why it’s more expensive to build at the beach than Kingsford. The ground around there is all shite.

Have said all along the council have put AFC / Cormack between a rock and a hard place here because everyone would prefer to remain at the beach but the club can’t afford it, and the council aren’t going to make a contribution that will cover the additional money it’ll cost.

Which is typically short sighted and moronic from them. 

[NEM]

22 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

He's just trying to appeal to the lowest denominator. Keep them thinking there's a chance they can still stagger from the pub to a ground at the beach before inevitably building at Kingsford when the council backs out (which they will).

 

Yeah course we will!  Just like we built one at Bellfield and Loirston

 

 

[zeroisgod76]

10 minutes ago, NEM said:

Yeah course we will!  Just like we built one at Bellfield and Loirston

 

 

You can't actually believe the fairytale stadium at the beach will be built? ?

 

[NEM]

1 hour ago, zeroisgod76 said:

You can't actually believe the fairytale stadium at the beach will be built? ?

 

Likely not.  It's as much chance of the white elephant in Westhill though

[zeroisgod76]

4 minutes ago, NEM said:

Likely not.  It's as much chance of the white elephant in Westhill though

So you think there's as much chance of a stadium being buil on saturated ground at the beach that will cost substantially more money and has the backing of the corrupt city council (who have already stabbed the club in the back once and will do the same again without hesitation) as there is of it being built at Kingsford where planning permission is already granted and the ground has already been prepared for it? Fair enough!!

[DandyWarhol]

17 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

So you think there's as much chance of a stadium being buil on saturated ground at the beach that will cost substantially more money and has the backing of the corrupt city council (who have already stabbed the club in the back once and will do the same again without hesitation) as there is of it being built at Kingsford where planning permission is already granted and the ground has already been prepared for it? Fair enough!!

The site at the beach could be an Indian burial ground, contain unexploded bombs, nuclear waste - that still wouldn't make Kingsford any less of a terrible location for our new ground.  2 wrongs don't make a right.

[RUL]

35 minutes ago, NEM said:

Likely not.  It's as much chance of the white elephant in Westhill though

Westhill is a brutal location for a new stadium, it can't cope with the traffic a football game would cause and folk will not be boarding buses to get there.

So i'm with you, neither is happening.

[NEM]

56 minutes ago, DandyWarhol said:

The site at the beach could be an Indian burial ground, contain unexploded bombs, nuclear waste - that still wouldn't make Kingsford any less of a terrible location for our new ground.  2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

46 minutes ago, RUL said:

Westhill is a brutal location for a new stadium, it can't cope with the traffic a football game would cause and folk will not be boarding buses to get there.

So i'm with you, neither is happening.

Spot on

[zeroisgod76]

1 hour ago, RUL said:

Westhill is a brutal location for a new stadium, it can't cope with the traffic a football game would cause and folk will not be boarding buses to get there.

So i'm with you, neither is happening.

And Pittodrie / the beach is fantastic for being able to cope with traffic at a football match?

[zeroisgod76]

1 hour ago, DandyWarhol said:

The site at the beach could be an Indian burial ground, contain unexploded bombs, nuclear waste - that still wouldn't make Kingsford any less of a terrible location for our new ground.  2 wrongs don't make a right.

The only issue with Kingsford as a location for the ground is that its not 'convenient' for those that want to have a drink before or after the game. It'll be easier to get to for most due to its proximity to the AWPR, it certainly won't be any harder to get in and out of by car than the Pittodrie is. If someone is so dependent on alcohol that they can't enjoy a game without a pint then there'll be plenty buses running to and from the stadium. Might take a little bit longer than staggering down King Street but sorry, thats tough.

 

[zeroisgod76]

5 minutes ago, NEM said:

Recovering alkie or  church minister?

Neither... just someone that doesn't need alcohol to get any enjoyment out of life. Like a drink, just not the be all and end all.

 

[NEM]

5 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

The only issue with Kingsford as a location for the ground is that its not 'convenient' for those that want to have a drink before or after the game. It'll be easier to get to for most due to its proximity to the AWPR, it certainly won't be any harder to get in and out of by car than the Pittodrie is. If someone is so dependent on alcohol that they can't enjoy a game without a pint then there'll be plenty buses running to and from the stadium. Might take a little bit longer than staggering down King Street but sorry, thats tough.

 

Recovering alkie or  church minister?

[NEM]

8 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

Neither... just someone that doesn't need alcohol to get any enjoyment out of life. Like a drink, just not the be all and end all.

 

Neither is going to watch that shit at Pittodrie sober ?

[zeroisgod76]

8 minutes ago, NEM said:

Neither is going to watch that shit at Pittodrie sober ?

Fair do's... the football on show this season could drive a recovering alkie or church minister to drink ?

[aberdeen1970]

31 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

The only issue with Kingsford as a location for the ground is that its not 'convenient' for those that want to have a drink before or after the game. It'll be easier to get to for most due to its proximity to the AWPR, it certainly won't be any harder to get in and out of by car than the Pittodrie is. If someone is so dependent on alcohol that they can't enjoy a game without a pint then there'll be plenty buses running to and from the stadium. Might take a little bit longer than staggering down King Street but sorry, thats tough.

 

You're generalising here though.

It's not just about being able to stagger from a pub to the game.  There's lots of reasons why its advantageous for the club to be in the centre of the city, if feasible.  Both for the club and the city

[zeroisgod76]

1 minute ago, aberdeen1970 said:

You're generalising here though.

It's not just about being able to stagger from a pub to the game.  There's lots of reasons why its advantageous for the club to be in the centre of the city, if feasible.  Both for the club and the city

Not if it costs substantially more to build. In that case there's zero beneift to staying in the city. There's benefits to the city for the club being there, very little benefits to the club.

[aberdeen1970]

1 hour ago, zeroisgod76 said:

Not if it costs substantially more to build. In that case there's zero beneift to staying in the city. There's benefits to the city for the club being there, very little benefits to the club.

Yeah it's got to be financially viable. 

But it's not just about folk going to pubs, it's much broader than that. 

[RUL]

1 hour ago, zeroisgod76 said:

And Pittodrie / the beach is fantastic for being able to cope with traffic at a football match?

It's brutal as well, especially with big crowds, but it's still got more plentiful parking than Westhill would.

[aberdeen1970]

5 minutes ago, muttonhumper said:

Eh?
Fit?

?

Well I suppose it does help before watching us these days! 

[muttonhumper]

1 hour ago, aberdeen1970 said:

But it's not just about folk going to pubs

Eh?
Fit?

?

[Andy_123]

9 hours ago, RUL said:

So why continue to push it? He must know we couldn't afford a £40M stadium, there's no danger we can afford a £75M stadium.

£40m was just about doable. Selling Pittodrie for £15m ish, some sponsorship money probably, mortgage the rest. We spend £500k a year is it on the upkeep of Pittodrie just now, which would be a decent mortgage payment and not leave us ‘out of pocket’ compared to now.

£75m is pie in the sky stuff though. No chance we can afford that without someone giving us stupid money towards it.

[RUL]

6 minutes ago, huncunts said:

Anyone that knows about this stuff able to explain what that is spent on, because it’s clearly not anything visible. 

I genuinley think AFC made it up a number of years ago and have stuck by it.