Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[gannonball]

3 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

As much as it pains me to put up a link to this particular paper, Stephen McGowan seems to be the leading journalist with this 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5984237/Murrayfield-cost-Scottish-FA-twice-Hampden.html

If the deal stays as it is then Hampden is cheaper.

However the SFA have demanded QP sell up, else they will leave for Murrayfield.

Some board members are for Murrayfield to avoid maintenance costs and use bigger capacity most likely for Old Firm games.

For me, as it stands I don't like either stadium particularly. Murrayfield was dreadful for football with a shallow rake behind the goals in the lower tier and vast expanses of grass meaning it was hard to see the action. Hampden has similar faults behind the goals too. Both as it stands are poor options for spectators.

However I look at the Welsh example. They moved to a rugby stadium and left within 10 years. Their example is one we should be very wary of. As much as having the national stadium in the capital is a normal thing, I don't feel Murrayfield is an attractive option. As previously mentioned it is poor for football fans, parking is grim and it is not going to be a big improvement to an already poor experience.

Ideally we would rebuild Hampden or do what the Irish did with building the Aviva making it fit to host both sports, in a central location in the capital.

What is everyone's thoughts on the above link and the best way forward?

I think the article headline is slighltly missleading Im guessing once you factor in maintenance costs it will be cheaper overall, if you think how many times its cost to rip up and replace the Hampden park pitch over the past few years I could certainly believe it.

I am in favour of Murrayfield for the following reasons:

-Bigger and better stadium (admittedly views arent the best because of the bigger pitch but having watched a few football games at Murrayfield and many At Hampden I preferred Murrayfield mainly because the worst view is certainly the first half a dozen rows at Hampden. Atmosphere is also far worse to because of lack of gradient)

-Better transport links

-Far more pubs 

 

Should the SFA be able to make Hampden their own issues with the pitch being played on every week could be removed but in terms of rebuild I just wouldnt trust them with any significant sums of money, not that I am calling them corrupt these days just totally incompetent. For that reason Murrayfield for a hundred grand a game seems a pretty decent deal, I can remember the GAA charging the FAI and the IRFU for Croke Park over a million euros per game. This was mainly because they knew they had little choice elsewhere but this is not the case here even if Hampden gets bulldozed. For me The least scope we have them (SFA) making an arse out of things the better so giving a lump sum for the majority of it to be taken care of the better.

Edited July 24, 2018 by gannonball

[The Moonster]

All feels like a bald man trying to decide which comb to use to me.

[Jaggy Snake]

58 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I think the article headline is slighltly missleading Im guessing once you factor in maintenance costs it will be cheaper overall, if you think how many times its cost to rip up and replace the Hampden park pitch over the past few years I could certainly believe it.

The article doesn’t go close to working out which stadium is actually cheaper overall. Even if the figures it quotes are correct it’s not simple as maintenance versus additional rent.

It doesn’t consider other events the SFA make money from, such as Ed Sheeran playing three nights at Hampden recently. They also made a lot of money from hosting the Commonwealth Games, even after paying to play Scotland games elsewhere at that time.

They would lose sponsorship money either from stadium naming rights or simply advertising around the pitch. There’s also a fair possibility they could lose at least some of their income from catering and/or hospitality, depending on the deal the SRU are offering.

I’d be pretty surprised if Murrayfield worked out cheaper once you account for all the other lost sources of income but, either way, that article certainly doesn’t tell you which is the better deal.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Jaggy Snake

[gannonball]

5 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

The article doesn’t go close to working out which stadium is actually cheaper overall. Even if the figures it quotes are correct it’s not simple as maintenance versus additional rent.

It doesn’t consider other events the SFA make money from, such as Ed Sheeran playing three nights at Hampden recently. They also made a lot of money from hosting the Commonwealth Games, even after paying to play Scotland games elsewhere at that time.

They would lose sponsorship money either from stadium naming rights or simply advertising around the pitch. There’s also a fair possibility they could lose at least some of their income from catering and/or hospitality, depending on the deal the SRU are offering.

I’d be pretty surprised if Murrayfield worked out cheaper once you account for all the other lost sources of income but, either way, that article certainly doesn’t tell you which is the better deal.

Agreed in terms of sub-letting Hampden there is less revenue but we could also in theory be selling extra seats for internationals and semi/finals to make up some of the difference. In terms of naming rights given we had to get the scottish government to bail us out for a sponsor for the scottish cup for two years then some how managed to go two years without a sponsor so Im guessing the money for the stdium rights wasnt all that significant either,again I would mainly lay this blame at SFA for this. As mentioned the less they have to do to balls up the better. Double booking Hampden for a Robbie Willaims gig (i think?) was hillarious as it was mortifyng.

[banana]

5 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

What is everyone's thoughts on the above link and the best way forward?

The only thing to stop what will be decades more moaning is a new stadium. Murrayfield views and other complications don't cut it.

Tear down all but the south stand, move the pitch 15 yards closer to the south stand, rebuild west and east as 15k kops, roughly mirror the south in a new north. Everything close to the pitch. ~65k capacity.

Build with other facilities as ongoing revenue streams.

Just need funding, which is likely not forthcoming.

[BucksburnDandy]

37 minutes ago, banana said:

The only thing to stop what will be decades more moaning is a new stadium. Murrayfield views and other complications don't cut it.

Tear down all but the south stand, move the pitch 15 yards closer to the south stand, rebuild west and east as 15k kops, roughly mirror the south in a new north. Everything close to the pitch. ~65k capacity.

Build with other facilities as ongoing revenue streams.

Just need funding, which is likely not forthcoming.

 

Tend to agree with you there Banana. SFA need to be looking into the private sector for significant funding, using the Irish example where over half the funding for the Aviva came from the private sector. In an ideal world, we would have a single national stadium for both sports, but I can't see that happening given the inertia in public society and two organisations that are run relatively amateurish.

[JamesM82]

3 hours ago, banana said:

The only thing to stop what will be decades more moaning is a new stadium. Murrayfield views and other complications don't cut it.

Tear down all but the south stand, move the pitch 15 yards closer to the south stand, rebuild west and east as 15k kops, roughly mirror the south in a new north. Everything close to the pitch. ~65k capacity.

Build with other facilities as ongoing revenue streams.

Just need funding, which is likely not forthcoming.

Well put here.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by JamesM82

[Savage Henry]

For once I agree with Banana. A complete rebuild of Hampden is the only option which will shut this daft debate up. Given that the Scottish government won’t fund it (I might argue that they shouldn’t anyway but that’s not the point), you essentially have Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is. Given that choice, Edinburgh is the only option.

[forameus]

Yeah, a new stadium for me would be the best option, or at least the one that doesn't have massive negatives (other than funding).  But then who really would be interested in getting involved?  Where's the benefit?

Expect it'll be Murrayfield, and although people from further North than the Campsies will scoff, it'll likely be the end of me going to Scotland games apart from selected ones at sensible times.  The thought of an evening kick off and having to pile on at Haymarket for the couple of hours it'll take to get home sounds fucking shite.

[RandomGuy.]

I'll give it three games at Murrayfield until everyone moans about the shite view from behind the goal, and the fact you've to leave the stadium if you want any refreshments 

[Hampden Diehard]

Now Peter Dallas, the man running Hampden and employed by the SFA, points out the problems of moving to Murrayfield. This after the confidential financial details are leaked to the press the day after the bids were lodged.

The SFA have never had any interest in moving. This is all just a means to get the ground from QP for a pittance and put them out the door. Shameless c***s.

[Gordopolis]

I really don't understand why our national association can't see sense in doing right by QP and acquiring the stadium the right way. So predictable that they'd make a dog's dinner of it all.

[Sergeant Wilson]

9 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

I really don't understand why our national association can't see sense in doing right by QP and acquiring the stadium the right way. So predictable that they'd make a dog's dinner of it all.

I might be wrong, but I think it's because the people involved at the SFA, Clubs and SPFL are morally reprehensible cùnts.

[gannonball]

1 hour ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Now Peter Dallas, the man running Hampden and employed by the SFA, points out the problems of moving to Murrayfield. This after the confidential financial details are leaked to the press the day after the bids were lodged.

The SFA have never had any interest in moving. This is all just a means to get the ground from QP for a pittance and put them out the door. Shameless c***s.

The problem of the nations league in Autumn clashing with test matches is a non-issue for me, I cant see there being much appetite for these games so a 70 000 stadium for it isnt required. 

As for the financial details do you mean the lottery repayments? Is lottery funding not usually made public?

For all there faults I cant blame the SFA for looking elsewhere as Hampden as it stands now isnt really fit for purpose and isnt even the biggets/best stadium in Glasgow let alone Scotland.  100 grand a game seems very reasonable if we can agree a long term lease on Murrayfield 

I can understand QP shiteing themselves over this but if the SFA secure funding to buy and develop Hampden, if the purchase price more than covers doing up Lesser Hampden (assuming you negotiate that as part of the deal) would that not be best for all parties involved?  

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by gannonball

[buchan30]

Not that the sfa would, but the nations leagues games should be taken around the country. Depending on appetite for them, initial and projected sales would still give them enough time to decide on a venue. Tynecastle, Pittodrie etc.

 

If queens park do get punted, where would they go to? Would it be a case of ground sharing?

[Gordopolis]

31 minutes ago, gannonball said:

The problem of the nations league in Autumn clashing with test matches is a non-issue for me, I cant see there being much appetite for these games so a 70 000 stadium for it isnt required. 

As for the financial details do you mean the lottery repayments? Is lottery funding not usually made public?

For all there faults I cant blame the SFA for looking elsewhere as Hampden as it stands now isnt really fit for purpose and isnt even the biggets/best stadium in Glasgow let alone Scotland.  100 grand a game seems very reasonable if we can agree a long term lease on Murrayfield 

I can understand QP shiteing themselves over this but if the SFA secure funding to buy and develop Hampden, if the purchase price more than covers doing up Lesser Hampden (assuming you negociate that as part of the deal) would that not be best for all parties involved?  

 

Spot on. Of course it would. It'd be mutually beneficial on almost every level. The only upside to the way the SFA appear to be going about it now is that they might save a wedge of cash... But surely setting an ethical precedent of goodwill and cooperation is way more important than hitting short term financial targets?

 

[HibeeJibee]

On ‎24‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 13:29, BucksburnDandy said:

In an ideal world, we would have a single national stadium for both sports, but I can't see that happening given the inertia in public society and two organisations that are run relatively amateurish.

SRU own Murrayfield... are about to clear the lasts of the debt they accrued building it... and it is rectangular... holds 68,000... and is in Edinburgh.. which is the capital. If it was suggested there should be 1 national stadium I suspect they'll politely suggest they already have one readied.

Edited July 30, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[BucksburnDandy]

SRU own Murrayfield... are about to clear the lasts of the debt they accrued building it... and it is rectangular... holds 68,000... and is in Edinburgh.. which is the capital. If it was suggested there should be 1 national stadium I suspect they'll politely suggest they already have one readied.

Unquestionably they would do and unquestionably they would be correct to do so. It has a lot more going for it than Hampden in terms of being in the capital, shape and capacity. What goes against it currently are dreadful bottom tier views, lack of indoor catering facilities and huge playing surface even for rugby. My other fear is a poor relation scenario as the FAI seems to suffer at the Aviva where they are a bit of an afterthought.

No question the SRU have a strong bid. Goodness knows why both organisations were so parochial in the early 90s when they really could have seized the opportunity to build a world class national stadium for both sports.

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

Goodness knows why both organisations were so parochial in the early 90s when they really could have seized the opportunity to build a world class national stadium for both sports.

Glasgow v Edinburgh thing mainly.  There can't be many other countries where the headquarters of the 2 main sports are in different cities.

 

[Peppino Impastato]

Get murrayfield and Edinburgh right to f**k.  Football is based in Glasgow at Hampden.