itzdrk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Getting rid of a mostly fine national stadium to give money to Celtic, Rugby & Rangers can get so far in the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Maybe not quite as bad as I thought. Was sure I had seen a photo taken from behind the goal when hearts were playing that looked worse Pretty sure Hearts made the pitch the same size as their pitch at Tynie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Hampden isn't feasible in this day and age. Not enough games are played there to merit a lot of money being spent on it to be upgraded. I wouldn't be against them using any other of the big stadiums like Murrayfield, Ibrox or Parkhead for internationals or cup semi-finals/finals. Let's be honest all 3 are better than Hampden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, Worktheshaft said: Am I not right in thinking that with football dimensions applied to the pitch at Murrayfield you end up further away from the action than at Hampden? Somewhat: 9 minutes ago, PhilStamp1_2 said: Certainly doesn't look like it It's not ideal. Athletics 100m down one side, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Hampden is actually the perfect monument to how Scottish Football is run and to the people who run it. Long may they bask in the reflected nutty brown glow of its epic shiteness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 It's very simple. Hampden isn't very good, but the only other big football grounds in the country belong to the clubs that already receive vastly inflated income and advantages. The idea of most internationals, semis and finals taking place at their grounds is horrible and must be resisted. Correct.Hampden is shite, clearly, however the distortion of wealth in this country to two clubs is a far, far bigger issue. Thus the alternative should not be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Hampden is actually the perfect monument to how Scottish Football is run and to the people who run it. Long may they bask in the reflected nutty brown glow of its epic shiteness. I was just thinking that it's a typically pathetic and shite Scottish football situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 It's very simple. Hampden isn't very good, but the only other big football grounds in the country belong to the clubs that already receive vastly inflated income and advantages. The idea of most internationals, semis and finals taking place at their grounds is horrible and must be resisted. In a way I agree but maybe we should look at ways to share income more evenly between the club's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibsFan Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, ftk said: Hampden isn't feasible in this day and age. Not enough games are played there to merit a lot of money being spent on it to be upgraded. I wouldn't be against them using any other of the big stadiums like Murrayfield, Ibrox or Parkhead for internationals or cup semi-finals/finals. Let's be honest all 3 are better than Hampden. Queen's Park play there every fortnight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Queen's Park play there every fortnight? I know that I mean games that attract big crowds. Do you think if Scotland left Hampden they would keep the 50,000 capacity? No they would either sell it or make it smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 13 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said: Somewhat: It's not ideal. Athletics 100m down one side, too. If you're right up the back in the corners or behind the goal at MF, you can be pretty far away, but the view is far better than the equivalent seats at Hampden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, ftk said: In a way I agree but maybe we should look at ways to share income more evenly between the club's. Of course we should but you can guarantee that putting ourselves in a situation where all big games must take place at OF grounds, would fly directly in the face of any such desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Murrayfield is probably the worst 6 nation venue. (not sure what Italy's is like?) Could the SFA and SRU not come together and build a new joint stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 1 minute ago, ftk said: Murrayfield is probably the worst 6 nation venue. (not sure what Italy's is like?) Could the SFA and SRU not come together and build a new joint stadium? Where? Paid for by who? SRU have only recently got on top of debts entailed in building their 67,000-seater venue in Edinburgh - what's in it for them. SFA don't own Hampden. Incidentally, could large-scale segregation be an issue at Murrayfield? Basically the turnstiles are around the edge of the complex and all the stands connect to each other in one big thoroughfare. Catering etc. all outside. Plus the SFA declined using Murrayfield for the Hibs-Hearts final, or while Hampden was unavailable in 2014. Topping rather dismisses it. What chance it'd be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Where? Paid for by who? SRU have only recently got on top of debts entailed in building their 67,000-seater venue in Edinburgh - what's in it for them. SFA don't own Hampden. Incidentally, could large-scale segregation be an issue at Murrayfield? Basically the turnstiles are around the edge of the complex and all the stands connect to each other in one big thoroughfare. Catering etc. all outside. Plus the SFA declined using Murrayfield for the Hibs-Hearts final, or while Hampden was unavailable in 2014. Topping rather dismisses it. What chance it'd be considered. It's the sensible solution but i suppose that's my downfall. How did Wales and Ireland fund theirs and who funded Wembley? SRU would get a brand new stadium out of it. As for where? Probably somewhere between Glasgow and Edinburgh with good transport links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 That's the point, though. Why would SRU swap full ownership of their own fairly modern 67,000-seat Edinburgh venue, for part-ownership of a similar venue "somewhere between Edinburgh and Glasgow"? How realistic is (say) Stirling, anyway? Given the fiscal climate it'd have to be largely financed by loans plus whatever SRU could sell that's not floodplain. SFA haven't anything to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 The SFA won't use Murrayfield for the simple reason that it's in Edinburgh. Think nothing of the tram stop or the major train station just a 10 min walk away. Nothing will stop the SFA Celtic Sevco threesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 That's the point, though. Why would SRU swap full ownership of their own fairly modern 67,000-seat Edinburgh venue, for part-ownership of a similar venue "somewhere between Edinburgh and Glasgow"? How realistic is (say) Stirling, anyway? Given the fiscal climate it'd have to be largely financed by loans plus whatever SRU could sell that's not floodplain. SFA haven't anything to sell. It's not very realistic tbh. It will be Ibrox/Parkhead or new deal with Hampden. Just a shame these 2 organisations couldn't have got together in the past or near future to give Scotland the national stadium it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 48 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said: That's the point, though. Why would SRU swap full ownership of their own fairly modern 67,000-seat Edinburgh venue, for part-ownership of a similar venue "somewhere between Edinburgh and Glasgow"? How realistic is (say) Stirling, anyway? Given the fiscal climate it'd have to be largely financed by loans plus whatever SRU could sell that's not floodplain. SFA haven't anything to sell. The SRU have also just started work on a hotel in the grounds of MF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Flybhoy said: Its an embarrasment of a national stadium. They should raise it to the ground, awful venue to watch football. Look at wales , Ireland and now even Northern Ireland's new ground . Compare them to hampden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.