Jump to content

Is The Bing Forever?


Jaggernaut
 Share

Recommended Posts

Everyone will agree (I hope) that it's an eyesore. 

When the stadium was terraced around three sides, Firhill was long seen as an excellent facility, often used as a venue for Junior semi-finals and even finals, youth internationals, etc (even for non-football sports).. But now it's overlooked because it's frankly, dilapidated, tired (see the videos with weeds growing and flourishing in the walls of the main facade.) These days Firhill is just another lower league teams's stadium (slightly bigger), with one end or one side totally open to the elements and no chance of a real, 100% "cauldron-type" atmosphere at a match.

No team currently in the Premier League has a 3-sided stadium.  And any such team that gets there won't last long. The figures speak for themselves.

"There are genuine, serious" football teams, and there are "cannon-fodder- whose role is to up the numbers" . Are we in the latter, along with Stenhousemuir, Albion Rovers etc ? (Both good clubs, Community-minded.)

Earlier this evening I watched a couple of videos of Jags fans traveling away to support the team. Truly impressive, and much bigger support than one might expect. Why do the guys follow? At least, let's give the impression that we are an ambitious club!

 

Discuss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what do you suggest we do? If we have income that exceeds expenditure I'd like to see it spent on the management and playing staff. Perhaps if we win a few tournaments, then the small change could be spent on your dream. Frankly, we struggle to fill two sides of the current stadia, and the away support usually makes a pathetic job of filling the third.

 

For me 'tis not a priority. Perhaps after we win something major?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone may correct me but I think our crowds are on a general downward trajectory over the last 20 years or so? Indeed over the 50 odd years I’ve been going is probably been a very gradual decline. Difficult to be precise in recent times with Premiership, Championship and Division 1 status, but I certainly don’t detect any growth in our support that would justify spending on the bing and increasing ground capacity.


As much as I would like a terracing back I think there is a wider longer term discussion to be had as the main/CW stand will need replacing at some point, either through structural necessity or due to any future enhanced fire safety regulations.

Edited by JAG1970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pointless discussion. Unless and until someone is willing to put a substantial seven, possibly even eight, figure sum into a property project by way of working capital, redevelopment of The Bing and/or The Main Stand isn’t economically viable.
 

It certainly isn’t economically viable even then if it’s principally to be used as a footballing facility, rather than for other commercial/residential use.

Bluntly, we don’t need, and can’t justify, a 10k seater stadium. We only have it because of rules now widely accepted to be ruinous specifically for clubs of our size. Even 8k is tenuous. Except against the Old Firm or a title decider, I’d go as far as to say that 6k is a little bit of an indulgence.

Given that:

(a) the Jackie Husband Stand already has 6k on its own

(b) previous attempts at property-based redevelopment got absolutely nowhere over a 15 year period

(c) Glasgow City Council has consistently rejected planning permission for almost anything on The Bing

(d) no Bing redevelopment (as distinct from a tidy-up) is economically viable without redeveloping The Main Stand

I would put the prospects of Firhill becoming a 4-sided stadium in my lifetime at approximately zero.

In fact, I’ll go further. It is more likely in my lifetime that the Jackie Husband Stand and North Stand are demolished than that The Bing will become a facility for hosting fans on matchdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the chances of the Main Stand surviving without major redevelopment or a rebuild in my lifetime are certainly nil. Don't want to be all 'in the know' but I'm aware that from the perspective of people whose opinions matter on these things, it's on the shoogliest of pegs as it is.

That's almost certainly the context in which the bing gets any attention whatsoever - not as an addition, but as an alternative.

Personally I'd love to see safe standing there, which would presumably be a relatively low-cost development, but there's no financial sense in doing it if we don't regularly fill the other three stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is a pointless discussion. Unless and until someone is willing to put a substantial seven, possibly even eight, figure sum into a property project by way of working capital, redevelopment of The Bing and/or The Main Stand isn’t economically viable.
 

It certainly isn’t economically viable even then if it’s principally to be used as a footballing facility, rather than for other commercial/residential use.

Bluntly, we don’t need, and can’t justify, a 10k seater stadium. We only have it because of rules now widely accepted to be ruinous specifically for clubs of our size. Even 8k is tenuous. Except against the Old Firm or a title decider, I’d go as far as to say that 6k is a little bit of an indulgence.

Given that:

(a) the Jackie Husband Stand already has 6k on its own

(b) previous attempts at property-based redevelopment got absolutely nowhere over a 15 year period

(c) Glasgow City Council has consistently rejected planning permission for almost anything on The Bing

(d) no Bing redevelopment (as distinct from a tidy-up) is economically viable without redeveloping The Main Stand

I would put the prospects of Firhill becoming a 4-sided stadium in my lifetime at approximately zero.

In fact, I’ll go further. It is more likely in my lifetime that the Jackie Husband Stand and North Stand are demolished than that The Bing will become a facility for hosting fans on matchdays.

Being totally hypothetical here. Even if there was a PTFC funded plan for redevelopment of the Bing in place any plans would be either put on a very long hold or scrapped altogether. Reason being the amount of work required for the rest of the stadium could be crippling as it is. I know very little about accounting methods especially when it comes to depreciation (both wear and tear and capital). But I wouldn't be the least surprised if some of the rosier pictures of our finances coincided with unrealistic depreciation.

From albeit this untrained eye it certainly looks like considerable maintenance is long overdue at Firhill. It may well be some juggling act next season in addressing that and keeping a competitive team on the field.

I differ slightly from above in that I think a lego style South Stand could be possible. We would be gambling tho' on top tier survival long enough to cover costs. It would be financed entirely on incremental income from additional attendances when we play the ugly sisters plus I suppose less guaranteed fixtures against the likes of Hearts etc. So perhaps it's actually possible but I much doubt there would be interest in such a scheme. 

Even if the land value increased, I'm presuming the majority of our support don't want us moving away from Firhill. If it ever comes about I sincerely hope the move is not driven simply because we can't afford the upkeep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mad that Partick Thistle and Queens Park do not share a stadium.  It happens in Rome and Milan to name just two cities, why not in Glasgow?  In Scotland we allowed the old firm to dictate our stadia size, forcing clubs invest off the pitch, reducing the ability to invest on it.  I wonder who that benefits, both on the pitch, and off it (with increased long term maintenance for smaller clubs)?

How we fund neccessary maintenance and refurbishment will be a real test for our fan owned club.  There has to be a serious debate followed by a clear plan.  Without that things are likely to drift, ending in even higher costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

It's mad that Partick Thistle and Queens Park do not share a stadium.  It happens in Rome and Milan to name just two cities, why not in Glasgow?  In Scotland we allowed the old firm to dictate our stadia size, forcing clubs invest off the pitch, reducing the ability to invest on it.  I wonder who that benefits, both on the pitch, and off it (with increased long term maintenance for smaller clubs)?

How we fund neccessary maintenance and refurbishment will be a real test for our fan owned club.  There has to be a serious debate followed by a clear plan.  Without that things are likely to drift, ending in even higher costs.

Did you go to Firhill last season?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

Don't understand your question scotty, but the answer is yes.

I think his point is that groundsharing with Queen's Park was disastrous for the playing surface.

There are plenty of reasons why Thistle and Queen's Park don't (permanently) share a ground, even if some of them wouldn't apply in the event a conscious choice was made to pursue such a solution.

One is timing: Queen's Park only relatively recently left Hampden, an asset that was very profitable for them while they owned it, but which would have been manifestly unsuitable for a club like Thistle.

One is the circumstances of their ceasing to own Hampden: the reason they sold is was part of a package proposal that would see Lesser Hampden redeveloped. Millions have been spent on that stadium, it's not even finished, and it would be wholly unsuited to Thistle's needs given our fanbase size.

One is geography: yes we are in the same city, but Queen's Park is a South Side team and we are fundamentally a North West Glasgow one. Moving Thistle far from North Glasgow would, IMO, kill the Club.

One is the Scottish climate and practicalities of ground-sharing (especially at Firhill): our pitch took an absolute battering with weekly football on it, leading to the Club having to spend money on remedial work, lessening the financial benefit of having a tenant.

One is the implications of switching to an artificial pitch: several points here - one is cultural aversion to synthetic surfaces, another is up-front financial cost (including if you change your mind later on).

We aren't like the Milan or Rome Clubs, where a purpose-built facility serves two clubs of roughly equal size, and of a much bigger size than ourselves. In their case they benefit from economies of scale; in our case the gains are much less significant. They also benefit from much warmer and dryer climate, making the maintaining of a grass pitch much more viable.

I would be very surprised if Thistle and Queen's Park end up ground-sharing again in any long-term capacity any time soon. It would be indicative of distress at one or both Clubs, not a proactive plan.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I think his point is that groundsharing with Queen's Park was disastrous for the playing surface.

There are plenty of reasons why Thistle and Queen's Park don't (permanently) share a ground, even if some of them wouldn't apply in the event a conscious choice was made to pursue such a solution.

One is timing: Queen's Park only relatively recently left Hampden, an asset that was very profitable for them while they owned it, but which would have been manifestly unsuitable for a club like Thistle.

One is the circumstances of their ceasing to own Hampden: the reason they sold is was part of a package proposal that would see Lesser Hampden redeveloped. Millions have been spent on that stadium, it's not even finished, and it would be wholly unsuited to Thistle's needs given our fanbase size.

One is geography: yes we are in the same city, but Queen's Park is a South Side team and we are fundamentally a North West Glasgow one. Moving Thistle far from North Glasgow would, IMO, kill the Club.

One is the Scottish climate and practicalities of ground-sharing (especially at Firhill): our pitch took an absolute battering with weekly football on it, leading to the Club having to spend money on remedial work, lessening the financial benefit of having a tenant.

One is the implications of switching to an artificial pitch: several points here - one is cultural aversion to synthetic surfaces, another is up-front financial cost (including if you change your mind later on).

We aren't like the Milan or Rome Clubs, where a purpose-built facility serves two clubs of roughly equal size, and of a much bigger size than ourselves. In their case they benefit from economies of scale; in our case the gains are much less significant. They also benefit from much warmer and dryer climate, making the maintaining of a grass pitch much more viable.

I would be very surprised if Thistle and Queen's Park end up ground-sharing again in any long-term capacity any time soon. It would be indicative of distress at one or both Clubs, not a proactive plan.

Maybe a club merger? Partick Queens Park Thistle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building a stand or terracing on the bing is nothing short of a vanity project and a complete waste of cash.

Id rather any money available for the ground was spent maintaining and bringing up to scratch the current stands we have that cope easily with the attendances of 99% of our games.

Moving from Firhill and from North West of Glasgow would see us going the same way as Clyde, Hamilton and Airdrie and basically kill the club, we have a location handy for multiple means of public transport, with shops, bars and food establishments within walking distance of the ground. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

With the Brechin hedge now consigned to the lower leagues is there scope to plant a number of trees and create the Firhill forest ? We might even become the first carbon neutral football ground 

Genuinely I do think that there must be scope to massively improve the look of the area without any huge amount of cash. Could make a nice community project. 

Also... Fir Hill

Edited by allyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 10:22 PM, allyo said:

Rewilding is where it's at

How about "The Harry Lillis Crosby Wildlife Park"? (See what I did there?)

Much as I hate the sight of the bing, others are right. Development would be a vanity project with a financial suicidal outcome. The harsh reality is that we will probably never again need a stadium with it's current capacity let alone more seating. We don't even fill it now when the Old Firm come calling. The main priority must surely be to make sure the ground remains safe, water-tight etc and at the very least LOOKS better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...