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

I have no intention of getting involved much further in pathetic virtual/cyber arguments about 'not being a AFC fan' and being 'a member of No Kingsford Campaign' or being 'Charlie somebody'.

 

Apologies my fellow AFC fans for quoting this again, but I'd missed this from Heather's earlier post, does anyone know anyone that calls themselves an "AFC fan"? Who on earth does that except an imposter, a non-football fan, indeed a non-AFC fan 

Surely you're more concerned about it being harder for a huge percentage of current crowds and season ticket holders or what's the thinking there? For you not being in the city is a good thing and for over half it's part of the day.

 

The landscapes changed/changing though.Mentioned further back that since 2003,around 55,000 migrants have moved to the city,of which 60% have settled on the east side of the city ie Seaton,Froghall,Torry etc,with more of the locals moving to the suburbs

   

Just having a pitch and pavilion is the case all over the world.

 

There are lots of things which are the 'case all over the world'

Lack of Education,

Lack of Clean Drinking water,

Lack of a safe place to live.

 

There are charities and aid groups working round the clock to try and resolve this but should they stop because they are fighting against arguably the norm for more than half the planet?

 

Actually implying the club should take a half-assed approach to providing facilities for their prized assets is one of the most depressing thing I've read on a Dons fans message board. It will be even more depressing if it actually came form someone who has a vested emotional interest in them IE a fan.

 

 

Just want to chuck in that the Standard parking requirement for stadia is Scotland (as adopted by ACC and numerous other councils) is 1 space per 15 seats + a transport assessment be it city centre, inner city, or the  outskirts

 

20000 seat stadium therefore is only obliged to provide 1,334 parking spaces. Current proposal provides 1,598 which is 1 space per 12.5 seats.

5 people per car = 7,990 fans

 

If parking capacity using other nearby facilities saw that increased to 3000 that would be 1 space per 7.

up to 15,000 fans (more if people carriers are used)

 

The average is 1.7-1.8 which would be 5100-5400.

 

You didnt even read and think there did you?

 

Only a small percentage of the current half of our fanbase will be disadvantaged. We're starting from a point where 50% (all the tuechters) will be better off.

 

Then many of the other 50% will be better off travel wise or no difference, think Dyce, Bucksburn, Sheddocksley, Mastrick, Northfield, Hazelhead,  Culter, Cults, Milltimber, Bieldside, Garthdee, Cove.

 

So yes, those in central Aberdeen, Seaton, Linksfield, Tilly, Bridge of Don, yes those guys will be worse off, they've had it good forever, they have no devine right to be able to (almost) walk to every home game.

 

Let's assume all of the former groups still go - because why wouldnt they now when it's easier to get to?

 

Let's also assume that most of the latter group still go - because they're dons fans, but there will be a drop off.

 

Now where does the gain come - from all over the hinterland,because like me, those who do actually have a decent commute to make to get to "Pittodrie" will suddenly have a much reduced travel, whereas those on the king st area (the "worst affected") will have the massive 6 mile journey to make that they previously didn't. The upside is massive, the downside is small.

 

Best location was Bellfield, but the Kingswells NIMBYs blew that up 15 years ago, don't let the Westhill W.A.N.K.S. do the same!!!

 

At least 4 of those areas which are large percentages don't count in the city half (and 2 are a lot harder). The people that want to be in the city before the match what about them?

 

3000 dropping off for whatever reason would be replaced by who? Are there Aberdeen fans all over Aberdeenshire desperate to go to Westhill instead of Aberdeen?

 

There are lots of things which are the 'case all over the world'

Lack of Education,

Lack of Clean Drinking water,

Lack of a safe place to live.

 

There are charities and aid groups working round the clock to try and resolve this but should they stop because they are fighting against arguably the norm for more than half the planet?

 

Actually implying the club should take a half-assed approach to providing facilities for their prized assets is one of the most depressing thing I've read on a Dons fans message board. It will be even more depressing if it actually came form someone who has a vested emotional interest in them IE a fan.

 

You'd rather they did what they've done and waited 20 years bussing them to random places and half pitches than have built football pitches and a pavilion. 

 

 

At least 4 of those areas which are large percentages don't count in the city half (and 2 are a lot harder)[1]. The people that want to be in the city before the match what about them?[2]

 

3000 dropping off for whatever reason would be replaced by who?[3] Are there Aberdeen fans all over Aberdeenshire desperate to go to Westhill instead of Aberdeen?[4]

 

[1] Yes they are, that's how the analysis works, if you're in the city, then it's counted as being in the city.  Which 2, for accuracies sake, are harder then?

 

[2] Who? Who is going to the football, but has to be in the city first? I've never met one of these 'AFC fans'?

 

[3] Nearly 33% of our crowd dropping off cos of what? Half our fans come from Aberdeen, ALL of Aberdeen, some of those are in wealking distance of the stadium, lets be generous to you considering the size of aberdeen, and say that means 25% walk. You're now saying that more than the walkers will not go to Kingsford when people will find it easier? Wise up.

 

[4]Well you're talking to one. In an office of four, one being a woman, my colleague (who lives in Westhill) is thinking he'll get a ST when the ground moves, and yet now only ever goes if he gets a corporate off a client. Yes that's hearsay and anecdotal, but hey, it's harder facts than what you're coming up with.

I would rather the club had one base which the players could travel to and not then have to be bussed about (Less they have to move about the less likely they are to be injured in coach accidents), which they are trying to do but for some reason you seem to be against this even though the masterplan has '5 pitches and a pavilion'

 

The average occupancy of a car is a lovely stat to throw about and what it shows is the over reliance modern day society has placed on them.

 

The guidelines for building design, master-planning etc have lots of different ratios but if they scrapped them in favour of statistics taken based on a certain number of people, in a certain environment at a certain time then what you would end up with is the following

 

-Small 1 (max 2) bedroom houses with 2 parking spaces as the Average household in Scotland is 2 people but they

  both own cars.

- Large Warehouses with expansive delivery bays as online shopping is seemingly on the verge of replacing the traditional high street or retail park

- Sports facilities being shut down as sports participation is declining.

Basically a Conservative party wet dream.

 

A wise man once said 'statistics are like mini-skirts, they look great but hide what is truley important'

 

Is your stance in this debate to be 'everything is fine, it has been for decades, so improvement/ change is not required'?

 

 

[1] Yes they are, that's how the analysis works, if you're in the city, then it's counted as being in the city.  Which 2, for accuracies sake, are harder then?

 

[2] Who? Who is going to the football, but has to be in the city first? I've never met one of these 'AFC fans'?

 

[3] Nearly 33% of our crowd dropping off cos of what? Half our fans come from Aberdeen, ALL of Aberdeen, some of those are in wealking distance of the stadium, lets be generous to you considering the size of aberdeen, and say that means 25% walk. You're now saying that more than the walkers will not go to Kingsford when people will find it easier? Wise up.

 

[4]Well you're talking to one. In an office of four, one being a woman, my colleague (who lives in Westhill) is thinking he'll get a ST when the ground moves, and yet now only ever goes if he gets a corporate off a client. Yes that's hearsay and anecdotal, but hey, it's harder facts than what you're coming up with.

 

The edge of the city 55% goes out to Bridge of Don, Bucksburn, Cults and Cove. Harder would be Northfield and Garthdee.

 

If you've never met people who go out in the city before football then I don't even know. Over half do.

 

Dropping off because the transport options are very poor and very limited for 3 times as many people. Why don't you get a bus to games to Union Street? Why do you think folk will do this to out there?

I would rather the club had one base which the players could travel to and not then have to be bussed about (Less they have to move about the less likely they are to be injured in coach accidents), which they are trying to do but for some reason you seem to be against this even though the masterplan has '5 pitches and a pavilion'

 

The average occupancy of a car is a lovely stat to throw about and what it shows is the over reliance modern day society has placed on them.

 

The guidelines for building design, master-planning etc have lots of different ratios but if they scrapped them in favour of statistics taken based on a certain number of people, in a certain environment at a certain time then what you would end up with is the following

 

-Small 1 (max 2) bedroom houses with 2 parking spaces as the Average household in Scotland is 2 people but they

  both own cars.

- Large Warehouses with expansive delivery bays as online shopping is seemingly on the verge of replacing the traditional high street or retail park

- Sports facilities being shut down as sports participation is declining.

Basically a Conservative party wet dream.

 

A wise man once said 'statistics are like mini-skirts, they look great but hide what is truley important'

 

Is your stance in this debate to be 'everything is fine, it has been for decades, so improvement/ change is not required'?

 

My point was how long they've not done it. Also that the Kingsford site is 4 times the Links. I think the training plans are very excessive and we can't afford the build or upkeep.

 

My stance is this is not an improvement in many areas and not the right improvement.

If the updated transport information confirms anything other than the current bus and price arrangements as now I'll accept I'm being blind to a business case here. 

 

The point of training facilities is they don't have guaranteed pitches to use at the moment. I've not seen McInnes or anyone complain about anything else.

 

Just having a pitch and pavilion is the case all over the world.

 

So you really can't see why a business who operate 20% of all bus routes in the country and clearly know how to run effective bus routes  wouldn't be interested in taking advantage of increased demand and put on new routes? Or that the club will do as they've said and organise shuttles from park and rides over the city? You really can't see why either would be thought of as a good idea?

 

McInnes and the club in general have spoken about the lack of proper fit for purpose dedicated facilities for years. It's really naive to think it's just a pitch and a pavilion... they're in use sometimes twice a day, most modern facilities include catering, or office space, gym space etc. Why should the club half arse the plans and leave themselves short of facilities they really need when there's the opportunity to get something that ticks all boxes?

 

You didnt even read and think there did you?

 

Only a small percentage of the current half of our fanbase will be disadvantaged. We're starting from a point where 50% (all the tuechters) will be better off.

 

Then many of the other 50% will be better off travel wise or no difference, think Dyce, Bucksburn, Sheddocksley, Mastrick, Northfield, Hazelhead,  Culter, Cults, Milltimber, Bieldside, Garthdee, Cove.

 

So yes, those in central Aberdeen, Seaton, Linksfield, Tilly, Bridge of Don, yes those guys will be worse off, they've had it good forever, they have no devine right to be able to (almost) walk to every home game.

 

Let's assume all of the former groups still go - because why wouldnt they now when it's easier to get to?

 

Let's also assume that most of the latter group still go - because they're dons fans, but there will be a drop off.

 

Now where does the gain come - from all over the hinterland,because like me, those who do actually have a decent commute to make to get to "Pittodrie" will suddenly have a much reduced travel, whereas those on the king st area (the "worst affected") will have the massive 6 mile journey to make that they previously didn't. The upside is massive, the downside is small.

 

Best location was Bellfield, but the Kingswells NIMBYs blew that up 15 years ago, don't let the Westhill W.A.N.K.S. do the same!!!

 

Pretty much nails it for me 

 

The edge of the city 55% goes out to Bridge of Don, Bucksburn, Cults and Cove. Harder would be Northfield and Garthdee.

 

If you've never met people who go out in the city before football then I don't even know. Over half do.

 

Dropping off because the transport options are very poor and very limited for 3 times as many people. Why don't you get a bus to games to Union Street? Why do you think folk will do this to out there?

 

There's no reason why the likes of cove cults, bucksburn etc has to be any harder to get to kingsford IF THE RIGHT LINKS ARE PUT IN PLACE. You can base it on current links to make things look worse than they are but that's assuming there will be no improvement in the public transport links despite there clearly being the demand if the stadium goes ahead.

 

Of course lots of people go out in town before the game just now, there's no reason that has to stop, it just means it'll change a bit. But don't you think bars in westhills & kingswells will be used by some as an alternative? Or that the traditional pubs running supports buses as mentioned previously will help things? I get it some people the change, it doesn't mean change is always as awful as you're making out.

 

My point was how long they've not done it. Also that the Kingsford site is 4 times the Links. I think the training plans are very excessive and we can't afford the build or upkeep.

 

My stance is this is not an improvement in many areas and not the right improvement.

Maybe, just maybe the site is 4 times as big as that's what is needed to include the required training facilities and car parking? Perhaps when it comes to what training facilities are actually needed the club are best place to decide what is excessive and what isn't, don't you think? The size of the site also allows the club to provide a fan zone which will increase the match day experience, something which has been needed at pittodrie for years.

So you really can't see why a business who operate 20% of all bus routes in the country and clearly know how to run effective bus routes  wouldn't be interested in taking advantage of increased demand and put on new routes? Or that the club will do as they've said and organise shuttles from park and rides over the city? You really can't see why either would be thought of as a good idea?

 

There are 24 bus routes to the city centre yet only about 2000 fans use them. I really can't see where the buses are coming from for this to Kingsford for 6000 for one offs. The shuttle bus is from the city centre to the ground.

 

McInnes and the club in general have spoken about the lack of proper fit for purpose dedicated facilities for years. It's really naive to think it's just a pitch and a pavilion... they're in use sometimes twice a day, most modern facilities include catering, or office space, gym space etc. Why should the club half arse the plans and leave themselves short of facilities they really need when there's the opportunity to get something that ticks all boxes?

 

Because clubs with 40,000 season ticket holders find it expensive.

 

There's no reason why the likes of cove cults, bucksburn etc has to be any harder to get to kingsford IF THE RIGHT LINKS ARE PUT IN PLACE. You can base it on current links to make things look worse than they are but that's assuming there will be no improvement in the public transport links despite there clearly being the demand if the stadium goes ahead.

 

I'm basing it on what the club have submitted for a £50 million development and change of base. I'm not just going to hope!

 

Of course lots of people go out in town before the game just now, there's no reason that has to stop, it just means it'll change a bit. But don't you think bars in westhills & kingswells will be used by some as an alternative? Or that the traditional pubs running supports buses as mentioned previously will help things? I get it some people the change, it doesn't mean change is always as awful as you're making out.

 

Aye a few, not over 6000. And the bar bus contribution would be in the low hundreds.

 

Maybe, just maybe the site is 4 times as big as that's what is needed to include the required training facilities and car parking? Perhaps when it comes to what training facilities are actually needed the club are best place to decide what is excessive and what isn't, don't you think? The size of the site also allows the club to provide a fan zone which will increase the match day experience, something which has been needed at pittodrie for years.

 

Milne's brain has been stuck on an out of town joint stadium and humongous training facilities since the 90s which has caused us to have no training facilities and a neglected stadium in 2017. I don't think he's best placed for anything.

There are 24 bus routes to the city centre yet only about 2000 fans use them. I really can't see where the buses are coming from for this to Kingsford for 6000 for one offs. The shuttle bus is from the city centre to the ground.

 

Because clubs with 40,000 season ticket holders find it expensive.

 

I'm basing it on what the club have submitted for a £50 million development and change of base. I'm not just going to hope!

 

Aye a few, not over 6000. And the bar bus contribution would be in the low hundreds.

 

Milne's brain has been stuck on an out of town joint stadium and humongous training facilities since the 90s which has caused us to have no training facilities and a neglected stadium in 2017. I don't think he's best placed for anything.

 

So because you can't see where the buses are coming from it's impossible is it?

 

I fail to see what point you're making about clubs with 40,000 season ticket holders, I really don't think there's anything excessive about the training facilities planned and really struggle to understand why you think they're so excessive .  It all seems reasonable for a club or our size and has the added benefit of being able to use the facilities for the community and AFCCT, which can't be a bad thing.

 

And I suspect there will be more than a few take advantage of the bars near the stadium, folk will do whatever's most conveniently, a fair number of that could well find heading out early easiest. Not denying buses run from pubs will be anything but in the 100's, it's an alternative to the situation you've laid out and one that's been mentioned already as realistic.

 

I wondered when it would come to Milne too, there's more people behind this than Milne, the same people that have lead to the club being better run than it has been for years. There's no denying the plans need improvement, which many people have already pointed out to you, that's not to say suitable improvement isn't possible.

 

You also seem determined to not take in the many valid points raised as to why the situation isn't nearly as bad as you're making out, which is puzzling...

So because you can't see where the buses are coming from it's impossible is it?

 

I fail to see what point you're making about clubs with 40,000 season ticket holders, I really don't think there's anything excessive about the training facilities planned and really struggle to understand why you think they're so excessive .  It all seems reasonable for a club or our size and has the added benefit of being able to use the facilities for the community and AFCCT, which can't be a bad thing.

 

And I suspect there will be more than a few take advantage of the bars near the stadium, folk will do whatever's most conveniently, a fair number of that could well find heading out early easiest. Not denying buses run from pubs will be anything but in the 100's, it's an alternative to the situation you've laid out and one that's been mentioned already as realistic.

 

I wondered when it would come to Milne too, there's more people behind this than Milne, the same people that have lead to the club being better run than it has been for years. There's no denying the plans need improvement, which many people have already pointed out to you, that's not to say suitable improvement isn't possible.

 

You also seem determined to not take in the many valid points raised as to why the situation isn't nearly as bad as you're making out, which is puzzling...

 

 

They've taken into account all the available buses in the city with most of First's seemingly being at the park and rides.

 

Maintaining basically 4 pitches and 2 synthetic pitches and the pavilion that size will surely cost a fortune or am I wrong?

 

It's always been Milne proposing these. Sporting legacy the north east etc etc. Always the same community campus training academy.

 

I acknowledge the upside which is it's easier to drive to from the shire. There's no future in that. The core walking and pub going support is gone. 500 from the Westhill area is not a base for a club this size.

 

They've taken into account all the available buses in the city with most of First's seemingly being at the park and rides.

 

Maintaining basically 4 pitches and 2 synthetic pitches and the pavilion that size will surely cost a fortune or am I wrong?

 

It's always been Milne proposing these. Sporting legacy the north east etc etc. Always the same community campus training academy.

 

I acknowledge the upside which is it's easier to drive to from the shire. There's no future in that. The core walking and pub going support is gone. 500 from the Westhill area is not a base for a club this size.

 

Fair enough, but we aren't limited to the number of buses currently in the city though are we? That's something that can (and will) change as the demand does.

 

Of course the training facilities will cost money to maintain, everything does but the proposed facilities is no more than what the likes of hearts and hibs have had available to them for years, is that not an indication that they're not as excessive as you're claiming? They're also much more modest than the likes of Celtic and Rangers training facilities.

 

Of course there's future in improved access from the shire, to suggest otherwise really downplays our support from that areas. Appreciate less people can walk there but with that can be offset with improved public transport plans which you refuse to awknowledge is possible. In the absence of any suitable (and realistic) location in the centre what else can be done?

I have no intention of getting involved much further in pathetic virtual/cyber arguments about 'not being a AFC fan' and being 'a member of No Kingsford Campaign' or being 'Charlie somebody'.

 

Ignorant, childish, very untrue, infantile garbage but very typical of football forums.

 

Nobody seems to appreciate that Kingsford, its not about land being available or deliverable.  The site is not accessible by foot, cars and bicycles and contravenes just about every single planning statute and regulation going.

 

You can't just build something as 'we need a new stadium' and this land is available. Does not work that way. 

 

What else do the locals on here need to appreciate this?

 

Kingsford is a 'punt' and the club have (again) messed up its plans for a new stadium and let down McInnes and the players.  Amateurish, slipshod, rushed and a total fantasy of a submission.

 

Its one thing childish cretins on here getting all nippy as to my views just cause you do not agree with their own cliquey in house virtual agenda and house rules but it's another thing the club facing up to the fact that their planning and transport assessment is a big steaming pile of horse crap and have gone into a sulk about it.

 

June 20th I will be back on here and having a laugh as our clubs 'vision' goes down the tiolet........

 

 

Well you've pretty much proved the point of my post word for word. YOU have let genuine NKS campaigners down.

 

And as for the bit in bold don't make me laugh! If the shoe was on the other foot and someone was arguing for  the stadium on the NKS facebook page their posts would be deleted and they'd probably be blocked.

 

Typical of this football forum is that people generally don't get banned so you'll be welcome back here and free to make valid points on June 20th whatever way the result goes. Although I suspect you won't be back because you'll have to be up at Kingsford chaining yourself to trees to stop them being bulldozed.

 

They've taken into account all the available buses in the city with most of First's seemingly being at the park and rides.

 

Maintaining basically 4 pitches and 2 synthetic pitches and the pavilion that size will surely cost a fortune or am I wrong?

 

It's always been Milne proposing these. Sporting legacy the north east etc etc. Always the same community campus training academy.

 

I acknowledge the upside which is it's easier to drive to from the shire. There's no future in that. The core walking and pub going support is gone. 500 from the Westhill area is not a base for a club this size.

 

In addition to what ED has said, the reason why they are so large are for community it use. Last thing we'd want after spending all that money on new facilities, which dont go far enough imo, is that the club would have to deprive someone from using said facilities. Personally, I think the club should have bilt an indoor facility as it doesn't address winter training. We are a community club and what the club are doing in terms of this goes a long way to cement this vision.

In addition to what ED has said, the reason why they are so large are for community it use. Last thing we'd want after spending all that money on new facilities, which dont go far enough imo, is that the club would have to deprive someone from using said facilities. Personally, I think the club should have bilt an indoor facility as it doesn't address winter training. We are a community club and what the club are doing in terms of this goes a long way to cement this vision.

 

Really? I don't buy it. I think the club are overstating the "facilities" on offer. It's basically a bunch of fitba pitches. Perhaps a gym if it opens to the public. There is a hotel at the Prime 4 (Village?) with a swimming pool and gym. There are several fitba pitches in Westhill, closer to the town centre. I just don't see it as even a requirement of the local area, never mind something that might garner a lot of use. One of the major drawbacks of the facilities being right next door to the ground is that they probably won't be able to be used on a Saturday between midday and 6pm. I play(ed) in a block booking at ASV every week between 12:00-13:00 or sometimes 13:00-14:00. It was always busy. Saturday afternoons are a good time to be open if yer selling fitba pitch space. Also, and less of an issue, block bookings will be regularly affected by games being moved to Saturday lunchtime, Sunday etc. When you have as many different sites to choose from, you'd probably choose the one that allowed a fixed time for x number of weeks. I think that last point would be offset by the "AFC effect" though of being able to play at AFC's training ground.

 

Finally, if we were a community club, then we wouldn't be moving out of a community to a dual carriageway. It's no more "community" than Asda Portlethen.

I've no connection to No Kingsford group.

 

I'm an Aberdonian and an Aberdeen FC fan since 60's who doesn't want his club move to a place that is not even Aberdeen.

 

A soulless, legoland, cheap middle of nowhere monstrosity.

 

Building on the back of George Yule's desperate and fruitless attempts to save this project re: shuttle buses, a lot of bluster on here about buses, and bus services and bus lanes a little bit like Moses cutting a channel through the ocean.

 

But the feedback to the club and the Aberdeen C of Commerce has already indicated that most fan will attempt to get to the stadium via car.  It would take HOURS and HOURS to load people off of cars and onto buses.

 

There are inadequate parking facilities.

 

The council has already identified that pedestrians and cyclists getting to the stadium would have to take evasive action given dangerous facilities and roads out to Kingsford.

 

Its all coming to a pivotal 'wakey wakey' moment for George Yule and S.Milne - the plans are not deliverable from an infrastructural perspective.

 

There is a difference between image and reality - Its getting desperate.

 

Instead of attacking me or 'NIMBYS" those desperate for Kingsford Stadium, may I suggest that you vent your anger and disappointment at the club who spent ££££££ on these plans which are AGAIN amatuerish and not deliverable.

 

 

 

 

I've no connection to No Kingsford group.

 

I'm an Aberdonian and an Aberdeen FC fan since 60's who doesn't want his club move to a place that is not even Aberdeen.

 

A soulless, legoland, cheap middle of nowhere monstrosity.

 

Building on the back of George Yule's desperate and fruitless attempts to save this project re: shuttle buses, a lot of bluster on here about buses, and bus services and bus lanes a little bit like Moses cutting a channel through the ocean.

 

But the feedback to the club and the Aberdeen C of Commerce has already indicated that most fan will attempt to get to the stadium via car.  It would take HOURS and HOURS to load people off of cars and onto buses.

 

There are inadequate parking facilities.

 

The council has already identified that pedestrians and cyclists getting to the stadium would have to take evasive action given dangerous facilities and roads out to Kingsford.

 

Its all coming to a pivotal 'wakey wakey' moment for George Yule and S.Milne - the plans are not deliverable from an infrastructural perspective.

 

There is a difference between image and reality - Its getting desperate.

 

Instead of attacking me or 'NIMBYS" those desperate for Kingsford Stadium, may I suggest that you vent your anger and disappointment at the club who spent ££££££ on these plans which are AGAIN amatuerish and not deliverable.

 

How are you getting on with letting us know about the area of land the club have been "offered" for the training facilities and stadium within the city centre?

Really? I don't buy it. I think the club are overstating the "facilities" on offer. It's basically a bunch of fitba pitches. Perhaps a gym if it opens to the public. There is a hotel at the Prime 4 (Village?) with a swimming pool and gym. There are several fitba pitches in Westhill, closer to the town centre. I just don't see it as even a requirement of the local area, never mind something that might garner a lot of use. One of the major drawbacks of the facilities being right next door to the ground is that they probably won't be able to be used on a Saturday between midday and 6pm. I play(ed) in a block booking at ASV every week between 12:00-13:00 or sometimes 13:00-14:00. It was always busy. Saturday afternoons are a good time to be open if yer selling fitba pitch space. Also, and less of an issue, block bookings will be regularly affected by games being moved to Saturday lunchtime, Sunday etc. When you have as many different sites to choose from, you'd probably choose the one that allowed a fixed time for x number of weeks. I think that last point would be offset by the "AFC effect" though of being able to play at AFC's training ground.

 

Finally, if we were a community club, then we wouldn't be moving out of a community to a dual carriageway. It's no more "community" than Asda Portlethen.

 

Agree not having community use of the facilities on match days isn't ideal, but you only need to see how busy the likes of goals etc are weekday evenings to see how much use proper floodlit pitches would get. I know for a fact the 5's we play at goals would shift out there as it's right on the doorstep for all the players after work. I'm also guessing the benefit to opening the gym to the community would be for casual users rather than having to pay membership fees. Again that's just a guess. You're right though it's not an amazing offering to the community but it's still something. Having the AFCCT and meeting rooms etc for use by community groups also adds to it.

 

I'd disagree with Manc about it being large due to community use, it doesn't seem any bigger or more extravagant than the likes of hearts facilities which I'd imagine is a good bench mark.

 

As far as moving out of the community goes, I do get it... but I honestly think they're proposing this as there's no better alternative. For me kings links doesn't work on a financial perspective nor offering the same level of facilities as kingsford would. Going on the points raised on traffic assessments too I reckon it'd be almost impossible to get it passed on that front too given the issues raised at kingsford despite much better road infrastructure (admittedly being able to walk etc helps a bit). Guess it comes down to it definitely not being perfect but probably as good as we can reasonably expect unfortunately.

Instead of attacking me or 'NIMBYS" those desperate for Kingsford Stadium, may I suggest that you vent your anger and disappointment at the club who spent ££££££ on these plans which are AGAIN amatuerish and not deliverable.

 

Who the fuck are you talking to? I've managed to have a meaningful debate - as someone who's against the proposal - with everyone here without being "attacked", and neither are you being. Stop being such a dick and address the questions asked of you. No-one on here is hugely overwhelmed by the kingsford location, so a sensible argument would probably get a lot of reasoned responses. If there is to be a "wakey wakey" moment for Milne and Yule, then you'll still be a dick.

I've no connection to No Kingsford group.

oh Heather

 

Who the fuck are you talking to? I've managed to have a meaningful debate - as someone who's against the proposal - with everyone here without being "attacked", and neither are you being. Stop being such a dick and address the questions asked of you. No-one on here is hugely overwhelmed by the kingsford location, so a sensible argument would probably get a lot of reasoned responses. If there is to be a "wakey wakey" moment for Milne and Yule, then you'll still be a dick.

 

 

 

Nail. On. The. Head. 

I acknowledge the upside which is it's easier to drive to from the shire. There's no future in that.

There's a ton of future in that, you won't lose a single shire fan, plus it will without doubt bring fans who rarely if ever go because now they don't have to navigate all the way through town and then out again with heavy post-match traffic.

 

The core walking and pub going support is gone. 500 from the Westhill area is not a base for a club this size.

The Core support is not walkers. 55% of STs go to city dwellers, ALL city dwellers. I'd bet you're lucky if 1000 fans actually walk to the game solely, and not having first got a bus/car/train into the city.

 

As I said before, you've large areas of the city where they'll actually be better off, so again if anything you're likely to see an uptick in support from those areas too.

 

So that just leaves the city centre/King st/Seaton locales as foot soldiers. Yes some will go never to return, but plenty will keep going to games. The upside is ease of access for the whole shire, and half or more of the city.

The edge of the city 55% goes out to Bridge of Don, Bucksburn, Cults and Cove. Harder would be Northfield and Garthdee.

 

If you've never met people who go out in the city before football then I don't even know. Over half do.

 

Dropping off because the transport options are very poor and very limited for 3 times as many people. Why don't you get a bus to games to Union Street? Why do you think folk will do this to out there?

Going out in the city is not the same as "wanting" to be in the city, they're out in the city because that's where the stadium is.

 

I'd be astonished if this accounted for more than half of all fans. Plenty don;t go to pubs at all, those that do will find new places to drink in, or drink in town and get a bus/lift.

ACC, Aberdeen Univ and RGU have on a number of occasions worked and consulted with AFC as regards training facilities e.g. Kingslinks.

 

The club have knocked these plans back and decided not to progress in an effort to press on with Kingsford/Loriston etc.

 

Kinsgford is plan C.

 

As Kingsford is dying on its arse transport wise where is Plan D going to be located?

 

I open the floor.........