ABERDEEN supporters and club chairman Stewart Milne were celebrating victory yesterday after Aberdeen City Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new £50m stadium and training complex on greenbelt land at Kingsford, seven miles to the west of the town centre, but they may still have a battle on their hands.

The "No Kingsford Stadium" group, which has fought the scheme tooth and nail, have pledged to continue their war, despite Milne’s claim that he would be surprised were there a legal challenge.

He is aware, however, of the strength of feeling among those who live in the vicinity of the proposed new development, residents who say that council officers have fallen down on any challenge made to assertions by Aberdeen Football Club regarding the economic benefit of the project.

In their brochure to accompany the application, the club proclaimed that “the Kingsford project will generate a value of £8.53m-£9.53m which equates to 346-408 additional jobs.”

But the No Kingsford Stadium team questioned where the council's response to challenge that claim was.

The PR campaign surrounding the football club’s efforts has been slick – presumably expensive – and ultimately successful. So far.

However, Aberdeenshire Council, which has opposed the entire scheme, even though it lies within the city boundary, might still have a meaningful say over car parking and a footbridge which will carry supporters to and from the ground. One end of that bridge lies within

Aberdeenshire land.

There is also the question of the 100-plus buses which will shuttle fans from the city centre – pick-up parking for them may be problematic – to Kingsford, or at least a car park 30 minutes' walk from the stadium, all of which will add time at each end to the fans’ day out.

In short, Milne & Co may have to put the expensive Champagne on ice as he called on protesters to discuss matters with him in an effort to find a way forward.

“We acknowledge there are people out there who still have concerns about the project,” Milne said. “There is a very strong desire by the club to work with them to try and alleviate those concerns if we can.

“If they are prepared to get round the table with us, with open minds, we’ll see what we can do.

“There is nobody happier in Aberdeen than me to see the club getting into this position and although we’ve had two previous successful applications, both were extremely challenging for the club to deliver for various reasons.

“Now, we have consent and we have a site we have control over. The one big challenge left is to raise the funds for the project. We have a huge challenge to raise £40m for the stadium while most of the £10m needed for the training complex is there.”

But the No Kingsford Stadium group remained resolute that they will fight on. They were adamant immediately after the vote had been taken that they have the funds in place to fight on in the courts and that they had no interest in Milne’s olive branch.

Their spokeswoman, Diane Reid, made that clear. She said: “We have shown that the application is contrary to the development plan and our position is supported by the Strategic

Planning authority, Aberdeenshire Council and the local community councils.

“It is our view that council officials and councillors have failed in their duty to apply the law in this case and we will now progress our petition for judicial review.

“We commissioned an independent review of the economic case which found that AFC had ‘grossly overestimated’ the impact.”

So, were councillors over-impressed by some of the claims made by the club and other organisations like Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce?

The Chamber’s chief executive, Russell Borthwick, a known long-time Dons fan, was quoted as saying that: “We believe that Kingsford is one of the major infrastructure projects that is key to the future of our economy.”

It would help “deliver our economic renaissance” and – perhaps being carried away by hyperbole – “having a stadium, training complex and community facilities all on a single site will position Aberdeen alongside clubs like Barcelona, Manchester City and Lyon.”

No half measures there, then, from Mr Borthwick.

No-one, of course, has argued that Aberdeen FC badly needs a new stadium and it is well known their lack of proper training facilities means they are often scurrying around, sometimes on a day-to-day basis, to find an available area on which they can prepare.

Yet, it seemed to go unnoticed in the meeting that the council had in the recent past offered to provide them with a £7.5m training area in the city’s Sheddocksley area which would, outside the hours it was required by Derek McInnes and his players, be made available to the

local community. This offer was rejected.

Today, we’re left with, in the red corner, an organisation pleased that it is job done – they hope – while in the blue, a large number of disgruntled potential neighbours concerned about increased traffic, noise pollution and inadequate parking.

Football is not their concern. Preserving their peaceful life in suburban Aberdeen is.