New stadium thread

[RicoS321]

Pittodrie is the best ground in the world, and anybody who says otherwise can go and fuck themselves. 

Is what Cormack should say next time he's interviewed on sportsound.

[tom_widdows]

46 minutes ago, Slim said:

Since Cormack took over construction costs have probably increased by at least £20m (IIRC expectation for Westhill was ~£40m) and likely value of Pittodrie land has decreased a fair bit too. Can’t see any real progress happening any time soon.

Price of materials and labour etc has gone through the roof in last 5 years (something happened about the start of February 2020 but no one seems to know. Lots of politicians and journalist wont even talk about it so it must be really bad)

A £10million development in 2017 could be closer to £25million now.

There are certain brands ill try to avoid specifying as their price per m2 went from £12 to £45 and sometimes you can no longer get it shipped to the UK.

My gut is starting to say if anything happens stadium wise it will be pittodrie redevelopment likely after (or 'if) 'safe standing' becomes widely accepted in Scotland (not just small sections).

New Main, Merkland and South stand with the latter two having only rail seating. Capacity for European games cut to circa 13000 but for domestic games 20000 assuming the 1 rail seat = 2.5 standing ratio is correct.

Funding for this will come from selling the land earmarked for the new stadium as housing.

 

[RicoS321]

7 hours ago, tom_widdows said:

There are certain brands ill try to avoid specifying as their price per m2 went from £12 to £45 and sometimes you can no longer get it shipped to the UK.

Based on the price of children's football strips, I'm guessing that the brand is Adidas?

[Panda]

Meanwhile, Oxford United have got planning permission for their stadium (also a 16,000 capacity).

Estimated to be somewhere between £130m and £150m.

[wee toon red]

If that’s what £130m gets you then I’ll keep pittodrie thanks.

Edited August 14 by wee toon red

[tom_widdows]

1 hour ago, Panda said:

Meanwhile, Oxford United have got planning permission for their stadium (also a 16,000 capacity).

Estimated to be somewhere between £130m and £150m.

Stadium, 180 bed hotel, conference centre, health spa and retail (lot of non football things to go wrong there).

4.5miles away from oxford centre in neigbouring town of Kidlington but doea have the bonus of a railway station 

This is similar to Bolton shifting to the Reebok except unlike Oxford they werent getting evicted from their old ground and had parachute payments from the premier league to help finance it

Great they got planning approval but that just means the council will let them build it.

Actually getting the builders on site on the other hand.....

[Panda]

A rather impassioned plea from Dave Cormack.

https://www.afc.co.uk/2025/08/21/dave-cormack-lets-provide-future-aberdonians-with-a-city-to-be-proud-of/

[Slim]

Sounds reasonable in principle.

AFC commit to 99 year lease, "donate" Pittodrie land (I assume we retain liability for demolition costs).

Council uses capital loan facility for low-interest financing, receives large plot of land they can use for social housing and solves the issue they have of what to replace the Beach Leisure Centre with.

I would be a bit worried if the council sold the stadium to some faceless property investment company though. I also suspect that the proposed location would not be a simple construction project in terms of groundworks.

[RicoS321]

Looks like we'll need a new roundabout to get to it though 

[RicoS321]

It's a good statement from Cormack. From the council's perspective, the question would be: what to the Dons bring to the table? I don't see any evidence that sports village, transition extreme or the driving range - as examples - benefit from proximity to Pittodrie, so I'm not sure why a new stadium would be any different in that regard. The only benefit to Aberdeen city would be that the club doesn't move to Westhill. Not really a benefit, but a non disbenefit. I don't see the council going for it, although the 99 year lease would seem viable. 

[Slim]

I did like the suggestion of somehow combining AFCCT and Sport Aberdeen with the wider AFC operation but do wonder how that move to a "community club" model in partnership with the Council fits the reality that AFC is largely privately owned by wealthy American investors. And unless I missed something, we'll still need to go down to Dundee for water slides.

[wokinginashearerwonderland]

It is pie in the sky stuff really.  Cormack is of course (as he should do) just fighting his corner but in one breath he dismisses the suggestion that he wants the council to foot the bill then says exactly the opposite by suggesting all the club would contribute is the land that Pittodrie current sits on.  Never going to happen.

Probably impossible to really ascertain how much money the club brings into the city.  You would think that for every supporter who comes in for a game, goes for a couple of pints beforehand and spends a bit of money in the town there are probably another couple who drive in from the surrounding areas, buy a pie and a cola at the ground then disappear away again without setting foot in the city at all. 

The example he makes with Man Utd is just wrong because they have already stated down there that any new "Old Trafford" won't be funded by the tax payer.

[RicoS321]

29 minutes ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

It is pie in the sky stuff really.  Cormack is of course (as he should do) just fighting his corner but in one breath he dismisses the suggestion that he wants the council to foot the bill then says exactly the opposite by suggesting all the club would contribute is the land that Pittodrie current sits on.  Never going to happen.

Probably impossible to really ascertain how much money the club brings into the city.  You would think that for every supporter who comes in for a game, goes for a couple of pints beforehand and spends a bit of money in the town there are probably another couple who drive in from the surrounding areas, buy a pie and a cola at the ground then disappear away again without setting foot in the city at all. 

The example he makes with Man Utd is just wrong because they have already stated down there that any new "Old Trafford" won't be funded by the tax payer.

Not exactly. He's effectively saying that we would pay for it all, but over a 99 year lease. Basically, utilising the council's supposed ability to access funds at low interest to provide the capital. In effect, it would be a loan, with Pittodrie thrown in to sweeten the deal. I don't know anything about the Man United deal, but I expect that the difference will be in the wording. 

You're right about how much the club brings into the city, but the council doesn't need to worry about that I don't think. I don't believe that the club could afford the inflated alternative in shitey Westhill either these days, so any threat of moving out of the city rings hollow. 

[wokinginashearerwonderland]

11 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Not exactly. He's effectively saying that we would pay for it all, but over a 99 year lease.

Hmm, well, depends how you interpret it, I guess.

I mean, I would be willing to "build" the city a new leisure centre if the council will lend me £20M over 99 years.  Would bring in a load of money to the local economy. 

 

[tom_widdows]

13 minutes ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Hmm, well, depends how you interpret it, I guess.

I mean, I would be willing to "build" the city a new leisure centre if the council will lend me £20M over 99 years.  Would bring in a load of money to the local economy. 

 

At current building costs thats one small leisure centre.

Might have enough space for a  pool table if you dont mind angling the cues up the wall on 3 sides