Peaty FC Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Woke up this morning to hear the report the SFA are comtemplating using Ibrox & Parkhead for major games as an alternative to renewing lease on Hampden. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41936351 Let's nip this in the bud NOW. In the week a report comes out saying fans have little faith in the SFA (and SPFL), it appears the powers that be want to put more money in the hands of the big two. Scottish football needs a neutral venue for many reasons. To my mind the old redevelopment of Hampden was largely a mistake in both design and location but it remains an independent focal point for the whole of Scottish football. Murrayfield is for rugby. In many ways I don't have a problem with smaller grounds being used for games attracting appropriate attendances - a small packed stadium etc but to keep what little integrity remains within the SFA this suggestion needs to be ditched immediately. Thoughts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Woke up this morning to hear the report the SFA are comtemplating using Ibrox & Parkhead for major games as an alternative to renewing lease on Hampden. http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/41936351 Let's nip this in the bud NOW. In the week a report comes out saying fans have little faith in the SFA (and SPFL), it appears the powers that be want to put more money in the hands of the big two. Scottish football needs a neutral venue for many reasons. To my mind the old redevelopment of Hampden was largely a mistake in both design and location but it remains an independent focal point for the whole of Scottish football. Murrayfield is for rugby. In many ways I don't have a problem with smaller grounds being used for games attracting appropriate attendances - a small packed stadium etc but to keep what little integrity remains within the SFA this suggestion needs to be ditched immediately. Thoughts? This has been around for quite some time. The problem with Hampden is an economic one. They are being faced with a 35% increase in the rates and the stadium does not make the revenues to cover this increase. Sadly Scotish football does not have the money sloshing around to run Hampden at a loss.. Yes in a perfect world it would be lovely to have a neutral focus for the national team and cup finals, but sadly this is not a perfect world and we need to balance the money. I don't think this is a case of "want to put more money in the hands of the big two", but more a case of very few options. If Hampden has to go then the only alternative to Ibrox/Parkhead would be Murrayfield and I doubt that the egg chasers would be too keen on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljaggo Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 The egg chasers might well be in favour of hosting football internationals. Like the SFA, finances are important, and extra revenue with no additional costs to the SRU would be good news, after all they happily hosted Hearts games. The problem with Murrayfield is its size, and most football international would only half fill it, giving a poor atmosphere. If the SFA abandons Hampden, what happens to the stadium? Queens Park cannot maintain it, so maybe a ground share between QP and Thistle might be an option. If QP own some or all of Hampden, then its sale to developers could fund a south stand and perhaps other improvements at Firhill. Unlikely I admit, but you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I would never go to watch Scotland playing at either of those middens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonehJags Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) We need Hampden for many reasons. While it is not the best in terms of viewing, I would argue that it does create a good atmosphere. The recent game against Slovakia was amazing. I think people are now trying to use Hampden as an excuse for not qualifying for major tournaments to deflect the on field issues and performances. It has been our away form that has seen us fall at every hurdle. The only way to make Hampden better for viewing is by redeveloping it, but if there is no money to do it then it cant happen. Could the government come up with funding? Im sure that would be met with heavy criticism if they did. Edited November 10, 2017 by MonehJags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlgarveJag Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 It's not Hampden that need redeveloping it's the SF bl00dy A! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlgarveJag Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 who announces that the man YOU chose to lead the National team isn't the man to lead the national team before the very first game YOU have put him in charge of? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) Murrayfield was getting revamped about the same time as Hampden. Said then that a National stadium, to accommodate a number of sports, should've been built perhaps adjacent to Strathclyde Pk or in the Bannockburn area. Think it would be safe to say the cost of such a 80K +stadium would've been considerably less expensive. In fact it wouldn't be anywhere near the combined costs of developing both stadia and even back in the early 90s the infrastructure was more than adequate. Then again the SFA would no doubt still **** up the best laid plans. Would hate to see either of the ugly sisters grounds used again in all but an emergency. That said I mind queuing at some unearthly hour for a ticket for a major international game at Hampden. Morrisons (it may have been Safeway) were selling the briefs and they ran out with only about ten folk ahead of me in the queue. Had the match been at Parkhead, with its extra capacity, I would not have wasted my time queuing in vain. Only the SFA could oversee a situation where the national stadium has less capacity than a club ground. Only the SFA could oversee a situation where they build a 50K stadium in the same city as two other stadia, one of similar size and one of larger capacity. Edited November 10, 2017 by lady-isobel-barnett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 If Scotland play at Ibrox and Parkhead, then for that game, Ibrox or Parkhead would be the National Stadium. It's not like the ground will be filled with Rangers or Celtic fans singing Rangers or Celtic "songs". It's not like the team will come out to Rangers or Celtic music or Rangers or Celtic flags, and so on and so forth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljaggo Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 That's true Davie, but the buggers still get extra cash which only re-inforces the OF dominance. When it comes to logical stadia planning Scotland is, like our football team, woeful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garscube Road End Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I would never go to watch Scotland playing at either of those middens. I will never watch Scotland while that corrupt mob are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotterJag Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I've watched Scotland at Parkhead 3 times and Ibrox twice and we've won all five. Come to think of it I've seen us win at Tyncastle and Easter Road as well. 7 for 7. Incredible luck I suppose and actually can't believe that but it's just not the same. How we could play at the homes of two teams whose core believe is that they are too good for Scotland and belong in the English top tier is beyond me. We may as well play at St. James' Park as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elevenone Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I've watched Scotland at Parkhead 3 times and Ibrox twice and we've won all five. Come to think of it I've seen us win at Tyncastle and Easter Road as well. 7 for 7. Incredible luck I suppose and actually can't believe that but it's just not the same. How we could play at the homes of two teams whose core believe is that they are too good for Scotland and belong in the English top tier is beyond me. We may as well play at St. James' Park as well. If you have seen Scotland win 7/7 I will take an educated guess your days of being ID’d on doors is over 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightswood Jag Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Woke up this morning to hear the report the SFA are comtemplating using Ibrox & Parkhead for major games as an alternative to renewing lease on Hampden. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41936351 Let's nip this in the bud NOW. In the week a report comes out saying fans have little faith in the SFA (and SPFL), it appears the powers that be want to put more money in the hands of the big two. Scottish football needs a neutral venue for many reasons. To my mind the old redevelopment of Hampden was largely a mistake in both design and location but it remains an independent focal point for the whole of Scottish football. Murrayfield is for rugby. In many ways I don't have a problem with smaller grounds being used for games attracting appropriate attendances - a small packed stadium etc but to keep what little integrity remains within the SFA this suggestion needs to be ditched immediately. Thoughts? Murrayfield: Would be easier for the east coast fans to get to, good transport links and stand not as far behind the goals as at Hampden Hampden: Too far from the goal in the east stand, running at a loss, time to go. New stadium: Unaffordable Sellick Park: Wouldn’t be fair to give the richest club even more money than they already have to use their manky stadium. Castle Greyskull: Terrible stadium Tynecastle: Good for friendlies where there’ll be less people Easter Road: Same as Tynecastle Pittodrie: Same as Tynecastle Could maybe even use Rugby Park as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I'm assuming this is just a bargaining position. SFA don't own Hampden as far as I know, so having other options gives them more leverage in negotiations. Am I being too generous? Someone once (or twice) said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Though I'm not sure that it was a particularly wise person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garscube Road End Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Why has nobody said Firhill? That bing would hold 100k easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Why has nobody said Firhill? That bing would hold 100k easy. Gnomes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Why has nobody said Firhill? That bing would hold 100k easy. Firhill used to get used regularly for U-21 games, the Scottish Junior Cup Final/Semi-Finals etc. But its current sorry 3-sided state appears to have put an end to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Could maybe even use Rugby Park as well Think you're forgetting something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) Was firhill's biggest crowd a scotland v nth ireland, seem to remember my Dad telling me he went along and the packed in crowd was quite scary. On another note, and relevant to this topic - i have little knowledge and would be grateful if anyone can shed some light. If, as one poster has posted, QP own hampden, did the SF bl**dy A pay for the re build or did QP as a footy club. So the SFA pay for the upgrade then QP charge the SFA for use of the stadium? wtf? Does it then stand that althought the SFA, sponsers, and government paid for the upgarde only QP would get the cash from any sale therefore the SFA would have zero capital to build a new stadium. Call me a cynic but whose the incompetent? Seems QP are on the make here and the SFA have allowed themselves to be backed into a corner. I for one will not be going to either of the ugly sisters grounds for a scotland match and contribute to making the rich richer. I went a long time ago to ibrox and some of the stewards were wearing sevco badges and one even a rangers woolie hat!! Never again!!! Edited November 11, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljaggo Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) According to Wikipedia, Hampden is owned by QP. The major development was funded by the National Lottery, and because of cost over-runs as in all major Scottish public projects - Parliament building, Edinburgh Trams, Edinburgh Council common repairs - a fraud investigation was launched. Flog it off for housing I say, get the newly enriched QP as a bidey in at Firhill, and use our new dosh to improve facilities and squad. We might even attract some minor internationals with a new south stand. **** the SFA. Edited November 11, 2017 by eljaggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotterJag Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 If you have seen Scotland win 7/7 I will take an educated guess your days of being ID’d on doors is over Lol, yeah. Long ago.Sweden 1-0, Georgia 1-0 at Ibrox Latvia 2-0, Faroes 6-0, ROI 1-0 at Parkhead Estonia 3-2 at Tynecastle Trinidad & Tobago 4-1 at Easter Road My first game was a crazy affair v England at Wembley in 1988 where the whole ground was fighting just after Peter Beardsley scored. Around 2000 Chelsea fans in the Scotland end. Really bad. As good as my 'away' / 'home' ground record is, it took me five games to even see us score versus the Auld Enemy. Not exactly sure of my first Thistle game but my Dad, Uncles and Granda took me at an early age in the seventies. Would guess at around 1974. I was completely Thistle daft and loved the kit in the late 70's. Alan Rough owned the Camp Bar I think and my Granda got me a Birthday card signed by him. Loved Alex O'Hara and Doug Somner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Any disposal of Hampden would almost certainly result in QP moving permanently to Lesser Hampden, with the obligatory lick of paint making only a small dent in the windfall they would receive. The good travelling folk of Cumbernauld might even be tempted to opt for a ground share with them in a vain attempt to resuscitate their fortunes, having experienced the life being sucked out of them in their current location. Nah, on second thoughts that isnae gonnae happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanieD Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) Only claim to Scotland supporting fame is that I was one of the 7,300 or so who were at the lowest Scottish national team attendance ever - v. N Ireland 1970/1971 ish - at Hampden. The "glory hunters" presumably went to the England game the following Saturday. Edited November 11, 2017 by JeanieD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 It’s a terrible stadium for both football and concerts, if they (could afford) build a decent one in the central belt with decent road and rail links it would suit the country better, especially if it worked well for concerts too like the Etihad does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.