pedrodelawasp Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 So, Hampden doesn't look anywhere near as silly as I feared it might with the raised platform for the running track, which has got me thinking... Seeing as the stadium is already an oval and the stands are already quite far from the pitch, why not keep the track? Surely Scotland should have a better athletics stadium than Scotstoun? As far as diminished capacity goes, it shouldn't be too much trouble to expand the upper deck of the South stand, should it? Make that second tier substantially taller than it is and push the capacity to around 55k? Shame this wasn't thought about years ago when renovations began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 So, Hampden doesn't look anywhere near as silly as I feared it might with the raised platform for the running track, which has got me thinking... Seeing as the stadium is already an oval and the stands are already quite far from the pitch, why not keep the track? Surely Scotland should have a better athletics stadium than Scotstoun? As far as diminished capacity goes, it shouldn't be too much trouble to expand the upper deck of the South stand, should it? Make that second tier substantially taller than it is and push the capacity to around 55k? Shame this wasn't thought about years ago when renovations began. Football stadiums + Running tracks = Shite. Besides, this is a one off, it's hardly as it the stadium will be full for any other athletics throughout the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 No Hampden is a football stadium not an athletics stadium if anything we should be getting the stands closer to the pitch not further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Football stadiums + Running tracks = Shite.This, this, a thousand, hell, a million, times this. Hampden is a poor enough venue for watching football if you're behind the goals as it is. Keeping the running track would be a disaster. As much as it pains me to say it, Ibrox is what Hampden should look like. Steep, massive stands, rectangular, and close to the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedrodelawasp Posted August 2, 2014 Author Share Posted August 2, 2014 I totally agree that football stadiums with tracks are sh*t and that I would prefer Hampden to have a greater capacity and the stands closer to the pitch... BUT, that would pretty much require the complete demolition of Hampden as it stands and to start again. My point is more about making the best of the pile as it is... P.S. I'd love something along the lines of Dortmund's Westfallenstadion in an ideal world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I totally agree that football stadiums with tracks are sh*t and that I would prefer Hampden to have a greater capacity and the stands closer to the pitch... BUT, that would pretty much require the complete demolition of Hampden as it stands and to start again. My point is more about making the best of the pile as it is... P.S. I'd love something along the lines of Dortmund's Westfallenstadion in an ideal world Not necessarily - they could lower the pitch and bring the seats down, thus increasing the capacity. The problem with Hampden is that nearly all the money went into the BT stand while the rest of the ground got a roof and.......em.....f**k all else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermik Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 It is a shame that the track has to go as it does look awesome. If we were an athletic nation(like Jamaica or China or Kenya) then there might have been a slight argument to keep it but hey-ho off it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Not necessarily - they could lower the pitch and bring the seats down, thus increasing the capacity. Stands would still have to shallow a gradient. Start from stratch or swallow their pride and broker a deal with the SRU for Murray field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 It is a shame that the track has to go as it does look awesome. If we were an athletic nation(like Jamaica or China or Kenya) then there might have been a slight argument to keep it but hey-ho off it goes. Afaik the track will be lifted and relaid at Scotstoun. Hampden looks far better as an athletics arena than it does for the football IMO. It should have been turned into a proper football ground when it was redeveloped, Celtic showed how it could have been done a bit at a time. I've sat in the back row of the East stand at Hampden and the goal at the other end must be close to 200 yards away. I loved the place when I was young and it was terraced, the atmosphere made up for the lack of facilities, but to spend what they did and basically bolt seats to the terracing was a huge waste of money, and a chance missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Wish they could have massively redeveloped scotstoun stadium for the commonwealth games..... Though it might have ended up like Glasgow's answer to meadowbank ie. a massive white elephant. As it is we still don't have a decent sized stadium with a running track in glasgow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Scotland has no need for a substantial athletics stadium and the national football stadium needs a larger capacity than 44,000 or whatever Hampden is in its Games configuration. In any case, I assume you couldn't play fieldsports on the pitch inside the track, presumably it's just a few inches of earth and turf then the platform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedrodelawasp Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 Not necessarily - they could lower the pitch and bring the seats down, thus increasing the capacity. The problem with Hampden is that nearly all the money went into the BT stand while the rest of the ground got a roof and.......em.....f**k all else. I recall reading somewhere that the pitch cannot be lowered any further as all access is from the rear of the stands, and there is a building regulation that limits how many rows can be below the entrance point and outside surface level... or something to that effect. As far as not needing a decent athletics ground, why not? If Diamond League events could be hosted once or twice a year, perhaps the World Championships, British Championships, that's got to be pretty viable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I recall reading somewhere that the pitch cannot be lowered any further as all access is from the rear of the stands, and there is a building regulation that limits how many rows can be below the entrance point and outside surface level... or something to that effect. As far as not needing a decent athletics ground, why not? If Diamond League events could be hosted once or twice a year, perhaps the World Championships, British Championships, that's got to be pretty viable? exactly. There is plenty of athletic stadiums that just lie empty after Olympics .... I'm thinking of Beijing here for example.... Although they are hosting a world athletics championship iirc. If events could have been guaranteed for it afterwards/ tenants guarantee for it I think it would have been good. As it is, there isn't much legacy in a running track the installation of which puts a football stadium out of action for the best part of a year. Murrayfield only ever has a guaranteed 4-5 full houses a year iirc (home six nations and autumn internationals) so its not like every big stadium in Scotland is used to its full capacity every week..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Stands would still have to shallow a gradient. Start from stratch or swallow their pride and broker a deal with the SRU for Murray field. Murrayfield stands are pretty shallow gradient too, and aren't a whole lot nearer the pitch either. Especially the main stand side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I recall reading somewhere that the pitch cannot be lowered any further as all access is from the rear of the stands, and there is a building regulation that limits how many rows can be below the entrance point and outside surface level... or something to that effect. As far as not needing a decent athletics ground, why not? If Diamond League events could be hosted once or twice a year, perhaps the World Championships, British Championships, that's got to be pretty viable? How many people go to athletics meetings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 The money spent on Hampden should have bee used to replace Murrayfields East stand & bring it up to a capacity of 80k. More than enough for any event, neutral & in the Capital. It's no more National Stadium than fly in the air anyway, Queens Park own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Murrayfield stands are pretty shallow gradient too, and aren't a whole lot nearer the pitch either. Especially the main stand side. Behind the goals at Hampden is far further away from the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-MAN Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Is everyone on here too young to remember why Hampden is the way it is ? We needed to make it all seater after the Taylor Report. Thatcher wanted it demolished years earlier, we got a pittance from the government of the time and had a few million to redevelop the whole ground. They did the best with the funds they had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Is everyone on here too young to remember why Hampden is the way it is ? We needed to make it all seater after the Taylor Report. Thatcher wanted it demolished years earlier, we got a pittance from the government of the time and had a few million to redevelop the whole ground. They did the best with the funds they had. In fairness to Thatcher, the Celtic & Rangers fans came up with that idea first...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.