Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[jamamafegan]

I think Murrayfield should be used for the one or two big fixtures and then move games around the country for the smaller games. Do this while Hampden is redeveloped and we can return there and still hold the big games at Murrayfield.

[cyderspaceman]

The old Hampden was a dump. It had a great atmosphere for big games but what else would you expect from 100,000+  Scots, many (most) of them fuelled on alcohol? 

I've  never liked the new Hampden (has it paid for itself?)  and it should have been a new build somewhere in the central belt, near the railway and motorway. That's all in the past now and the reality is that 'something must be done'.  I don't like the idea of Murrayfield. Personally I'd play big games at Ibrox/Parkhead, (I know, more cash for the two cheeks) with the others spread around the country. I've no idea what is Queen's Park's current involvement in the stadium, presumably they will have an input.

It's already been the end of an era. I'll always remember the euphoria of being one of 135,000 roaring drunks celebrating a goal.  

Ask a QP supporter what it was like at other times.

[Steve_Wilkos]

Murrayfield is shite 

Hampden is shite

Give it Todders till end of the season

[Jdog]

f**k Hampden, it's Murrayfield every day of the week.

[Scary Bear]

If I was making the decision then I would definitely move to Murrayfield. That will cause much more media interest and political fury from political types in Glasgow. Wee Nic will come under pressure and the money for redevelopment of Hampden will magically be found.

[Silvio]

As many have said, the scheduling of the fixtures the real issue. A Sunday night against Albania at Hampden wouldn't be any more enjoyable if it was a Sunday night at Murrayfield.

I'm lucky, I live and work in the West so Hampden is fine for me. I've been going to home games since the qualification for Euro 96 and if it moves I'll cancel my membership and pick and choose.

Not throwing toys out the pram, it just won't be convenient for me any longer. But for everyone like me who chucks it, I'm sure there will be a new member. 

[pub car king]

Realistically the sea will buy hampden after using murrayfield as leverage to screw the price down. There will be minimal redevelopment and on we go.

 

What should happen is after 2020 euros there should be a large scale refurbishment of the ground and infrastructure around the place. The south stand cannot be touched really due to how close it is to housing but both ends behind the goals need pulled down and rebuilt as steeply as possible right on top of the pitch.

[JamesM82]

11 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

If I was making the decision then I would definitely move to Murrayfield. That will cause much more media interest and political fury from political types in Glasgow. Wee Nic will come under pressure and the money for redevelopment of Hampden will magically be found.

I wouldn't count on that. Government won't want to be seen blatantly favouring one governing body over another.

[Savage Henry]

13 minutes ago, pub car king said:

Realistically the sea will buy hampden after using murrayfield as leverage to screw the price down. There will be minimal redevelopment and on we go.

 

What should happen is after 2020 euros there should be a large scale refurbishment of the ground and infrastructure around the place. The south stand cannot be touched really due to how close it is to housing but both ends behind the goals need pulled down and rebuilt as steeply as possible right on top of the pitch.

Global warming has its benefits, then?  I don't know how realistic that actually is.  Abstract would be more my choice of word.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Savage Henry

[craigkillie]

13 minutes ago, Silvio said:

As many have said, the scheduling of the fixtures the real issue. A Sunday night against Albania at Hampden wouldn't be any more enjoyable if it was a Sunday night at Murrayfield.

I'm lucky, I live and work in the West so Hampden is fine for me. I've been going to home games since the qualification for Euro 96 and if it moves I'll cancel my membership and pick and choose.

Not throwing toys out the pram, it just won't be convenient for me any longer. But for everyone like me who chucks it, I'm sure there will be a new member. 

There are fewer people round about Edinburgh than round about Glasgow, so I wouldn't count on that.

[SaintDougie]

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

There are fewer people round about Edinburgh than round about Glasgow, so I wouldn't count on that.

Eh not really.  Glasgow may have a higher population and have a denser population in itself, but when you factor in West Lothian, Midlothian, East Lothian, and Fife then I'd be very surprised if there were fewer people around Edinburgh than that of Glasgow.  Add to that the populations of Perth & Kinross, Dundee, Angus, and even up to Aberdeen-shire all of whom would find commuting to Edinburgh a hell of a lot easier than commuting to Glasgow.

North of Glasgow after Alexandria the population plummets dramatically.

Stirling, Falkirk and the like are six and half a dozen for either. 

[Silvio]

3 minutes ago, SaintDougie said:

Eh not really.  Glasgow may have a higher population and have a denser population in itself, but when you factor in West Lothian, Midlothian, East Lothian, and Fife then I'd be very surprised if there were fewer people around Edinburgh than that of Glasgow.  Add to that the populations of Perth & Kinross, Dundee, Angus, and even up to Aberdeen-shire all of whom would find commuting to Edinburgh a hell of a lot easier than commuting to Glasgow.

North of Glasgow after Alexandria the population plummets dramatically.

Stirling, Falkirk and the like are six and half a dozen for either. 

Is the commuting from up north to Glasgow as difficult as it is being made out to be? Genuine question, not a wind up.

There is a motorway junction from the new m74  just 2 miles from Hampden for example. 

[craigkillie]

7 minutes ago, SaintDougie said:

Eh not really.  Glasgow may have a higher population and have a denser population in itself, but when you factor in West Lothian, Midlothian, East Lothian, and Fife then I'd be very surprised if there were fewer people around Edinburgh than that of Glasgow.  Add to that the populations of Perth & Kinross, Dundee, Angus, and even up to Aberdeen-shire all of whom would find commuting to Edinburgh a hell of a lot easier than commuting to Glasgow.

North of Glasgow after Alexandria the population plummets dramatically.

Stirling, Falkirk and the like are six and half a dozen for either. 

The map below shows the population density of Scotland, and it is clear that there are many more people round about Glasgow than Edinburgh. Fife and the Lothians are the regions which would benefit most from Murrayfield - their total population (including Edinburgh) is 1.2 million. Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire would be much handier for Glasgow - their total population (including Glasgow) is 2.2 million.  Note that I've excluded Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders from these calculations - both are roughly equal in population (D&G slightly bigger), but I thought both were slightly outside the main catchment areas.

In terms of travel from Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference in travel time to the two stadiums, either by car or by public transport.

 

 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Don't really see the point of reducing Hampden. If you don't think you'll get close to filling it for a big game, play around the country at a smaller stadium. If you think a game will attract 50k, play it at Hampden. If you think it will attract more than that, play it at Murrayfield or Parkhead.

Cup Final to stay at Hampden but have one semi at Murrayfield and one at Celtic/Ibrox on a rotating deal. 

QP to stay at Hampden. Although they are our rivals, I still quite like the curiosity of having a few hundred people turn up to games in a 50k stadium. It would be a shame if they were turfed out. 

Also get Aberdeen to ditch their stupid idea to move to the middle of nowhere and have them build a 30k stadium in the city. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Bully Wee Villa

[Burnie_man]

20 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Don't really see the point of reducing Hampden. If you don't think you'll get close to filling it for a big game, play around the country at a smaller stadium. If you think a game will attract 50k, play it at Hampden. If you think it will attract more than that, play it at Murrayfield or Parkhead.

Cup Final to stay at Hampden but have one semi at Murrayfield and one at Celtic/Ibrox on a rotating deal. 

QP to stay at Hampden. Although they are our rivals, I still quite like the curiosity of having a few hundred people turn up to games in a 50k stadium. It would be a shame if they were turfed out. 

Also get Aberdeen to ditch their stupid idea to move to the middle of nowhere and have them build a 30k stadium in the city. 

So keep Hampden and also rent Murrayfield, Parkhead and Ibrox, aye that will fill the SFA coffers!

Can we also put to bed this nonsense of moving games "around the country", Gibraltar 34,000, Malta 26,000. Other than Glasgow and Murrayfield, where do you play them?

[SaintDougie]

53 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The map below shows the population density of Scotland, and it is clear that there are many more people round about Glasgow than Edinburgh. Fife and the Lothians are the regions which would benefit most from Murrayfield - their total population (including Edinburgh) is 1.2 million. Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire would be much handier for Glasgow - their total population (including Glasgow) is 2.2 million.  Note that I've excluded Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders from these calculations - both are roughly equal in population (D&G slightly bigger), but I thought both were slightly outside the main catchment areas.

In terms of travel from Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference in travel time to the two stadiums, either by car or by public transport.

 

 

I stand corrected, though I still argue that Edinburgh is far easier for anyone on the East coast of the Country, which could be argued is half the population.

[Burnie_man]

7 minutes ago, SaintDougie said:

I stand corrected, though I still argue that Edinburgh is far easier for anyone on the East coast of the Country, which could be argued is half the population.

Anyone from West Lothian and Edinburgh can get to Hampden easily enough, the M8 and M74 improvements has made driving much easier. Train services could be improved to other parts of the country, but those problems will exist wherever you play games unless Scotrail/Govt step in and improve them on matchdays.   Murrayfield has one station, and the roads into it are a shambles, as is on street parking.

[SpoonTon]

8 minutes ago, SaintDougie said:

I stand corrected, though I still argue that Edinburgh is far easier for anyone on the East coast of the Country, which could be argued is half the population.

It might be easier, but not particularly convenient. I think that would be a worry, i.e, it would be convenient for fewer fans, especially on weeknights. 

[Hedgecutter]

Can't believe some of these posts when you consider the two grounds are only 45 miles apart (same distance as my house to Glebe Park for regular season games).  I used to commute more than that daily, never mind the 3+ hour trains to Hampden for what are rather infrequent games.  If people are suggesting that we should stay at a hole of a ground rather than a superior one all because a group of Weegies can't be bothered with an extra hour travel (if that) now and again, then God help us.

For a couple of previous points:

i) Aberdeen doesn't have anywhere suitable for a 30k stadium in the city, otherwise they'd have built the 20k one here.  I agree with binning the national tour idea though seeing as even the smaller competitive would easily fill them.  Smaller friendlies, absolutely, but that's the status quo really.   

ii) From Aberdeen / Dundee, it 'only' takes an extra 20 mins to get to Glasgow than it does to Edinburgh.  That's not taking intra-city transport into consideration though, for which you'd need to add on more for Glasgow.  Overall, it would be a minor change for the northern contingent on the travel front so there's not too much of an "Edinburgh is much easier" argument from us.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Hedgecutter

[Enigma]

Feel like there will be some pretty angry people if the SFA decide to move. Could make for some good reading here tonight.