Loirston chosen for new stadium

Aberdeen FC set to move

EXCLUSIVE

By Charlie Allan

 

Published: 03/04/2009

 

THE Evening Express can today reveal the preferred location for Aberdeen’s new community stadium.

 

The £38 million community facility, which will become home to Aberdeen FC, will be at Loirston Loch in the south of the city.

 

It follows a year-long series of feasibility studies to decide if the site at Nigg would be the best location for the stadium.

 

The report on the recommendation of the Nigg site will now go out to consultation and will be referred to the council’s policy and strategy committee on April 28.

 

A number of other potential sites across the city, including one at King’s Links, were examined by Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeen FC and it was decided all of them were unsuitable.

 

Aberdeen FC managing director Duncan Fraser, who is also a member of the Arena Project Advisory and Monitoring Board created to advise of the best site and stadium design, said: “These recommendations have still to be approved and at the appropriate time, there will be a full consultation process with fans.

 

“Their feedback will be important.â€

 

For more on this story, and an exclusive image of the new arena, pick up today’s Evening Express or check back later

Come on tae fuck .... it's nae difficult ... jist get it done  

 

Martin Gilbert getting involved in the stadium debate now. Not that this was pre planned or anything.

 

As I keep spouting, why are these very, very rich individuals not providing private funding themselves and help build a long term asset for the club?

I mean, if the stadium is such a money spinning asset for the City, then surely these individuals would want a piece of the pie and would want to control it.

I'm sure a man of Martin Gilberts background, could have put something together to facilitate this, without the need for public cash.

 

11 hours ago, Radiored said:

Come on tae fuck .... it's nae difficult ... jist get it done  

 

Is that the foundations of a Stewart Milne build?

 

No wonder they went bust! 😂

9 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

I mean, if the stadium is such a money spinning asset for the City, then surely these individuals would want a piece of the pie and would want to control it

That doesn't make sense. Whoever builds the stadium only owns the stadium. The money making part is the surrounding restaurants, pubs etc that benefit from the additional footfall - to the tune of 8 million additional customers a year, or week. It's like asking why they don't buy a road. 

 

His big fantasy is/was for rugby matches , relatively little fan interest ?  , & surely they wouldn't be playing internationals here anyway , not to mention the proportions of the stadium would doubtless induce  bad seating position behind goals.

funny he has the brass to mention kicking the can down the road , as that's what him & his phony predecessor have been doing for the last few decades,  after Milne's very first gamble of some other mug paying for it backfired

 

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

That doesn't make sense. Whoever builds the stadium only owns the stadium. The money making part is the surrounding restaurants, pubs etc that benefit from the additional footfall - to the tune of 8 million additional customers a year, or week. It's like asking why they don't buy a road. 

 

Just wrote a very long post in reply, but I got a time out error.

Fuck sake, the curse of Ab Mad!

16 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

Just wrote a very long post in reply, but I got a time out error.

Fuck sake, the curse of Ab Mad!

Must have been long. Even I've never had one of those.

37 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Must have been long. Even I've never had one of those.

Likely my phone, it's nae the best. I usually do longer posts on a laptop as easier on my eyes.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong but is the broad plan to have the LA access borrowing at lower rates to build and then the club repay that via rental income? Appreciate I’m probably over simplifying it but makes the ‘investing public funds’ a little more palatable (for the record, I’m not in favour of  using public funds for private benefit) as it’s almost a convenient transactional relationship with an upside to the LA over longer term. 

30 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

Likely my phone, it's nae the best. I usually do longer posts on a laptop as easier on my eyes.

 

I think most likely your phone, I can't see any kind of setting for that under the bonnet anyway.

22 hours ago, Panda said:

Oh I was being sarcastic.

I'll wait and see what comes of this before getting excited about anything.

I wouldn't say I was getting excited but it's no bad thing after the recent war of words for all parties to be coming out of a meeting of this ilk smiling, no? It's probably about as good a next step as could be hoped for all things considered.  That said it is, of course, an election year and the councilors could just be playing the game.  It's hard to look around the political lanscape of Scotland and find a politician that isn't a coward and shyster regardless of rosette worn these days and the only way to motivate them is to make them fear for their position at the trough.  
 

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

That doesn't make sense. Whoever builds the stadium only owns the stadium. The money making part is the surrounding restaurants, pubs etc that benefit from the additional footfall - to the tune of 8 million additional customers a year, or week. It's like asking why they don't buy a road. 

 

My reply take two.

For me, this Stadium is supposedly going to bring a prospective economic gold rush to the City. 

If it is that great a thing for the City, then why don't the great and the good come together and pay for it. I'm totally aware it won't make money, hence my concern about the Council paying for it.

I get that a City or a Town needs good infrastructure to attract and retain businesses, but for me anyway, Aberdeen Football Club Ltd, need this stadium much, much more than our City does. 

A Hospital,  a School and Roads are all good examples of where public money should be spent to bring growth to an area, but not quite sure a fitba stadium fits into to this.

We have had Woody stumping up a large amount for a hospital car park. We had the Donalds put £15 million into AFC to wipe out our debt, that was nothing to do with them. I am quite sure that between all the real monied folk in this City, we can surely come up with a way of financing this Stadium, which would remain an Asset for the club for the next 100 years or so. Even get the fans involved in some way. I am sure a few would like to be part of something like this. 

We were told 15 years ago, by the very same great and the good of this City, that Union Terrace Gardens would have to be concreted over, to keep the City economically viable, or some other mealy mouthed pish.  It didn't happen and what the Council did with it has just won an architectural award for it. It is a jewel in our City Centre and I hope that this new foodie place, where the New Market was, brings a much needed boost to Union Street, along with the other improvements being done. 

I want to see our City succeed, I want to see more positive changes like Union Terrace Gardens as opposed to the not so good Marischal Square, that was an opportunity lost for the City. Could have made a lovely Civic Square type of area with the old Town House complementing Marischal College. I would have knocked down the St Nicholas Centre too if given a chance. I'm certainly not averse to change. 

When they wheel out people like Martin Gilbert, just like they did with the UTG debacle from years back, it just stinks of the rich folk looking their noses down at the poor relations. 

I not the most articulated in getting my point of view across, but the whole thing just stinks and our local press seem to be agenda driven, just like they were with both UTG and Marischal Square and of course Trumps golf course in Balmedie. That was a new low amongst the many lows our esteemed Dundonian press.  

 

 

38 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

 find a politician that isn't a coward and shyster regardless of rosette worn these days  
 

We are led by the least among us

who was it used to say that about people in power - anywhere

1 hour ago, Ajja said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but is the broad plan to have the LA access borrowing at lower rates to build and then the club repay that via rental income? Appreciate I’m probably over simplifying it but makes the ‘investing public funds’ a little more palatable (for the record, I’m not in favour of  using public funds for private benefit) as it’s almost a convenient transactional relationship with an upside to the LA over longer term. 

Council build it. Club takes out a 99 year lease against it.

12 minutes ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

My reply take two.

For me, this Stadium is supposedly going to bring a prospective economic gold rush to the City. 

If it is that great a thing for the City, then why don't the great and the good come together and pay for it. I'm totally aware it won't make money, hence my concern about the Council paying for it.

I get that a City or a Town needs good infrastructure to attract and retain businesses, but for me anyway, Aberdeen Football Club Ltd, need this stadium much, much more than our City does. 

A Hospital,  a School and Roads are all good examples of where public money should be spent to bring growth to an area, but not quite sure a fitba stadium fits into to this.

We have had Woody stumping up a large amount for a hospital car park. We had the Donalds put £15 million into AFC to wipe out our debt, that was nothing to do with them. I am quite sure that between all the real monied folk in this City, we can surely come up with a way of financing this Stadium, which would remain an Asset for the club for the next 100 years or so. Even get the fans involved in some way. I am sure a few would like to be part of something like this. 

We were told 15 years ago, by the very same great and the good of this City, that Union Terrace Gardens would have to be concreted over, to keep the City economically viable, or some other mealy mouthed pish.  It didn't happen and what the Council did with it has just won an architectural award for it. It is a jewel in our City Centre and I hope that this new foodie place, where the New Market was, brings a much needed boost to Union Street, along with the other improvements being done. 

I want to see our City succeed, I want to see more positive changes like Union Terrace Gardens as opposed to the not so good Marischal Square, that was an opportunity lost for the City. Could have made a lovely Civic Square type of area with the old Town House complementing Marischal College. I would have knocked down the St Nicholas Centre too if given a chance. I'm certainly not averse to change. 

When they wheel out people like Martin Gilbert, just like they did with the UTG debacle from years back, it just stinks of the rich folk looking their noses down at the poor relations. 

I not the most articulated in getting my point of view across, but the whole thing just stinks and our local press seem to be agenda driven, just like they were with both UTG and Marischal Square and of course Trumps golf course in Balmedie. That was a new low amongst the many lows our esteemed Dundonian press.  

 

 

The only thing I would say here is hospitals, schools and roads will never pay for themselves.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that any loan taken out by the local authority for this work would not be getting paid by tax payers, it would be getting paid for by the profits of it's use which won't just be from rent from the Club.  I don't disagree that the club needs a stadium more than the council but the council needs Aberdeen fc in the city more than the club does.  The club moving to the outskirts of the city would be devastating to the city's finances which is why the LA approached the club in the first place a few years back.  It's not like the Dons haven't brought billions into the local economy over the past 120 years if you added it all up and applied inflation.

I say all this as someone who has no horse in the race other an AFC as I don't live in Aberdeen. My opinion on this is at best uninformed but on the face of it from the outside looking in it does seem like all parties would win.   
 

1 hour ago, TheDonbytheDee said:

Council build it. Club takes out a 99 year lease against it.

If the club take ownership of the construction cost risk and the lease payments cover the borrowing costs, where’s the risk against the council that makes it unviable?

The risk of the club being liquidated and defaulting on the lease agreement is probably the main one. Another could be it impacting the council’s ability to borrow funds for other things (e.g. council house construction). Both could be addressed/dealt with.

Most private sector construction follows similar principles. Investor funds the construction cost against a firm long-term lease commitment. The council’s pension fund are likely to be investors in such developments.

Only issue I really see is if Cormack is expecting the council to underwrite the over-run in build cost and fix the lease cost up front. 

Also worth asking if the club can afford £1.5m (guesstimate) a year rent payments. I assume we have zero rent at the moment.

51 minutes ago, Slim said:

If the club take ownership of the construction cost risk and the lease payments cover the borrowing costs, where’s the risk against the council that makes it unviable?

The risk of the club being liquidated and defaulting on the lease agreement is probably the main one. Another could be it impacting the council’s ability to borrow funds for other things (e.g. council house construction). Both could be addressed/dealt with.

Most private sector construction follows similar principles. Investor funds the construction cost against a firm long-term lease commitment. The council’s pension fund are likely to be investors in such developments.

Only issue I really see is if Cormack is expecting the council to underwrite the over-run in build cost and fix the lease cost up front. 

Also worth asking if the club can afford £1.5m (guesstimate) a year rent payments. I assume we have zero rent at the moment.

Do you honestly and truly believe that the Council will make money from this deal, if it were to happen? They absolutely should be looking to make gains from this type of deal if it were to go ahead, but they won't, however much spin is put on it, if it happens. 

The above is based on nothing other than gut feeling and reading of many Councils being done over through this type of partnership.

ACC got screwed over on the Bon Accord Centre many years ago, I can't remember the exact nature of the deal, but our tax lecturer used to tell us the story about it, but they were truly stitched up and all done legally. To my knowledge it never made the press, but it must be somewhere. 

There was also the more recent example of the place at Marischal Square that they lost their arse on. A smaller example of things that can go wrong, but an example nonetheless and also shows that Public money going to private organisations, though whatever means, should be carefully scrutinised to ensure the tax payer gets value for money. 

My argument here is that there should be enough wealth in this City to have built this damn thing years ago, without the need to take the begging bowl out looking for public money, at a time where the public finances are an absolute midden.

The Council can help in numerous ways to get this project off the ground, they could make land available, they could help with roads and surrounding infrastructure, so it all dovetails in to the new stadium.

I would also like the club to own the asset of a new stadium. I know it's not in vogue for companies to own large assets now and everything is done to ensure maximum shareholder return. I just believe that if you believe in something as a business, then you should put your money where you mouth is and invest in the bricks and mortar needed to build it and sustain it and for AFC that is our Stadium as much as the team. 

Anyway, I'm rambling now and going to STFU on the matter, but ats fit I think. 

There’s a bit of a difference between supporting a 122 year old business with 100,000+ potential customers (AFC) and chucking a million or so at a guy with a burger van (Resident X).

Didn’t suggest the council will “make money”, but was saying that they shouldn’t be in a position to lose money should everything be set up properly and AFC don’t take the piss. 

To put it simply, as long as the council can mitigate their risk exposure and receive a lease payment that at least covers the loan repayment then there shouldn’t really be any downside for them or the taxpayer.

Certainly seems more viable than begging for donations from rich people. And if Cormack is to be believed, there will be private sector contribution brought to the table from the AFC side which is most likely going to be from local businesspeople acting with their heart instead of their head.

44 minutes ago, Slim said:

There’s a bit of a difference between supporting a 122 year old business with 100,000+ potential customers (AFC) and chucking a million or so at a guy with a burger van (Resident X).

Didn’t suggest the council will “make money”, but was saying that they shouldn’t be in a position to lose money should everything be set up properly and AFC don’t take the piss. 

To put it simply, as long as the council can mitigate their risk exposure and receive a lease payment that at least covers the loan repayment then there shouldn’t really be any downside for them or the taxpayer.

 

It does highlight how easily our council can be duped. 

So I'm not wanting public money involved as I see nothing but risk for an already cash strapped council.

I've waffled enough about it now, and made my position clear, so this is my last post on the thread.

3 hours ago, Slim said:

If the club take ownership of the construction cost risk and the lease payments cover the borrowing costs, where’s the risk against the council that makes it unviable?

The risk of the club being liquidated and defaulting on the lease agreement is probably the main one. Another could be it impacting the council’s ability to borrow funds for other things (e.g. council house construction). Both could be addressed/dealt with.

Most private sector construction follows similar principles. Investor funds the construction cost against a firm long-term lease commitment. The council’s pension fund are likely to be investors in such developments.

Only issue I really see is if Cormack is expecting the council to underwrite the over-run in build cost and fix the lease cost up front. 

Also worth asking if the club can afford £1.5m (guesstimate) a year rent payments. I assume we have zero rent at the moment.

I imagine Pittodrie isn't cheap to upkeep these days, there would likely be some significant savings to be made by moving to a modern building (heating bill springs to mind).  I would also hope there would be enough financial benefits (e.g. we have no club museum but I bet we would in a new place) that would eat into the rental costs to make them fairly negligible.  The downside to it all is we never own the ground, we'll still be paying rent long after the stadium has been paid off and will not be able to profit from our home ground the way our rivals can.  

Again, I’ll be over simplifying this and don’t pretend to know a lot about it. I’d say that the biggest risk for council is optics. The ‘funding’ of what appears to be in support of a private business when the council is strapped and not investing in public services is never going to be a good look. Even if the truth of it is that there is little risk in leveraging borrowing power to then have the club do the heavy lifting on repaying and the council get the upside of a community asset that drives wealth back into the city in some form. For this reason (optics) I’d be surprised if they pulled it off. I agree that there must be a handful of wealthy folks who can chuck in £10m each to build legacy. Cormack should really be writing the first cheque. 

It’s moot anyway as "We have agreed to work towards a heads of terms that seeks to explore the delivery of a new stadium for Aberdeen." is the business speak equivalent of:

”Daddy can I have a pony for my birthday?”

”We’ll see…”

Working towards seeking to explore something is definitely going into my next slide deck on whatever pointless process we’re going to automate/standardise/disrupt that quietly gets forgotten about after a few months. Cheers Dave.

Edited December 14, 2025Dec 14 by Slim

I'm fairly confident in my prediction that ten years from now we'll still be playing at a largely unaltered Pittodrie.

How many years ago now was it that Milne first havered about the Aberdeen having to play European games elsewhere? Oh me.

29 minutes ago, Bukta Bertie said:

I'm fairly confident in my prediction that ten years from now we'll still be playing at a largely unaltered Pittodrie.

How many years ago now was it that Milne first havered about the Aberdeen having to play European games elsewhere? Oh me.

That was hilarious. Pittodrie is shite, we’ll have to play our home games at…Dens Park 😂

1 hour ago, Bukta Bertie said:

I'm fairly confident in my prediction that ten years from now we'll still be playing at a largely unaltered Pittodrie.

How many years ago now was it that Milne first havered about the Aberdeen having to play European games elsewhere? Oh me.

I mind being at an AGM during the Skovdahl years and Milne told us that we need to move out of Pittodrie because the main stand was falling to bits. 
 

Incidentally the reason I remember it being during the Skovdahl years was because Willie Miller stood up at the same AGM and demanded to know why the players were still using the tired training facilities at Balgownie that he used in the 80s. Before Milne got a chance to answer Ebbe piped in with “Yeah but there’s new grass there now!” to much amusement.