Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[BucksburnDandy]

Looking further into the nonsense survey that was done by the national convention of Yer Da’s.

The “only 15% of people surveyed wanted to stay at Hampden” is misleading when 26% voted for a new Hampden, an option that is not on the table so shouldn’t be considered in their survey.

Now I’m not saying that the whole of that 26% would fall into the stay at Hampden section but it needs to be said that the number would increase.

I think the new Hampden option was put into the survey to show that there is support for a Hampden Park, but not the way it currently is.

I would fall into that 26%. Personally love the idea of a Hampden, it is special to visit the national stadium. However, the current state of the national stadium means it is unattractive to fans. It's shallow, too far away from the game and generally struggles to retain any atmosphere. Fans want to be closer to the action in stands where you don't struggle to see over the person in front, get good sight lines and in a ground that is good for atmosphere.

Me personally, I would absolutely back developing Hampden properly this time. However, I can't see there being enough public sector backing of this option.

There is a survey of Scotland fans being run on a Facebook page at present. 854 responses, 430 voting to stay at Hampden (either in present form or redeveloped), 424 voting to move. Opinion is split very much over Hampden.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Ross. said:

The cynic in me still feels the SFA are looking at an ideal situation of forcing QP to sell them Hampden or worst case scenario getting the same access as they currently have at a much reduced price. They absolutely are not thinking of the long term benefits to the Scottish game of any scenario, though anything positive that comes from it will be claimed in the end as part of their thinking. All empire building and ego massaging.

Exactly.

I remember when they moved the city centre offices of the SFA & SFL to Hampden. It was considered a huge step forward and cost saving. The outcome they want is ownership and QP as tenants at Lesser Hampden.

[HibeeJibee]

6 hours ago, Ross. said:

The cynic in me still feels the SFA are looking at an ideal situation of forcing QP to sell them Hampden or worst case scenario getting the same access as they currently have at a much reduced price. They absolutely are not thinking of the long term benefits to the Scottish game of any scenario, though anything positive that comes from it will be claimed in the end as part of their thinking. All empire building and ego massaging.

SFA only pay £300k per year just now - 1% of their turnover - so any saving by putting the squeeze on QP isn't going to be substantial.

QP would presumably have something to say about being asked to give-it-up or sell-up and move out. It's their property and is presumably their main USP for players (given don't pay wages).

[Ross.]

2 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

SFA only pay £300k per year just now - 1% of their turnover - so any saving by putting the squeeze on QP isn't going to be substantial.

QP would presumably have something to say about being asked to give-it-up or sell-up and move out. It's their property and is presumably their main USP for players (given don't pay wages).

Do Hampden Events or whatever it is pay a separate rent for Hampden or is that included in the 300k you mention?

Edited January 4, 2018 by Ross.

[HibeeJibee]

Hampden Park Ltd is owned by SFA... HPL rents it for £300k a year... They are responsible for additional maintenance but receive all the income from matches (which will include rentals from SPFL), concerts and similar events, sub-letting of office space and so forth. It has been suggested in the media that the office space issue alone washes its face. HPL makes significant profit for SFA. Details earlier in thread/search online.

Mentioning SPFL there raises an interesting point... If SFA left - and took their £300k with them - could QP keep things going with income from concerts, non-SFA offices, and League Cup SFs & Final if struck deal with SPFL?


EDIT: Media reporting is complicated by fact SFA gives HPL £500k a year to "run Hampden" as if it's loses them half a million. However HPL pass on £300k as QP's rent and £200k (SFA's old contribution to debt which is long paidoff) is written-off against maintenance. Everything HPL makes, after maintenance, it hands to SFA as profit:

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/queen-s-park-dispute-sfa-chief-s-claim-over-hampden-cost-1-4618816

Edited January 4, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[Ross.]

4 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Hampden Park Ltd is owned by SFA... HPL rents it for £300k a year... They are responsible for additional maintenance but receive all the income from matches (which will include rentals from SPFL), concerts and similar events, sub-letting of office space and so forth. It has been suggested in the media that the office space issue alone washes its face. HPL makes significant profit for SFA. Details earlier in thread/search online.

Mentioning SPFL there raises an interesting point... If SFA left - and took their £300k with them - could QP keep things going with income from concerts, non-SFA offices, and League Cup SFs & Final if struck deal with SPFL?

I recall reading an earlier post which broke it down in more detail but from a quick flick through a few pages couldn't find it.

Re my cynical view on the SFA wanting to own Hampden: As it stands they have previously let QP take on the debt(and risk) but essentially paid for the rebuild with the 20 year lease. QP now have a substantially valuable asset to show for the SFA's spending. I can imagine that rankles with the blazeratti. I also imagine they feel having a valuable asset like Hampden under their own ownership would give them leverage for other things in future. That, and some good old fashioned ego soothing would easily be enough to convince some to try and force QP into a position where they have little choice but to sell up. Or worse, turn professional...

[pub car king]

Queens park should tell them to f**k right off.  Hampden as a venue san the sfa's team is more than capable of being run as a profitable business in terms of  concerts and facilities. 

Plus the sfa will end up renting scottish cup games with the old firm as I can' see murrayfield tolerating their shite more than once.

[Lambie's Pigeon Feed]

While what you say is correct, I wonder why the Welsh football team no longer play there and instead use the Cardiff City Stadium?

The WRU run and own the Principality Stadium, it was also largely empty and the fans hated it, so when Cardiff City build a big enough ground they moved there. Keeping the money in football was now an option and they took it. Not sure how much of a fuss this caused with Swansea and other clubs with Cardiff presumably making money off rent. Probably not enough to bother about in the English leagues anyway.

[HibeeJibee]

Millennium Stadium holds 75,000 and they were getting 20-25k so bigger stadium and smaller crowds than us.

Also they've only to think of internationals, not cup SFs / Finals and dare I say it OF "neutrality".

Edited January 4, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[Ross.]

No real history in the way that Hampden has one either.

[BucksburnDandy]

The WRU run and own the Principality Stadium, it was also largely empty and the fans hated it, so when Cardiff City build a big enough ground they moved there. Keeping the money in football was now an option and they took it. Not sure how much of a fuss this caused with Swansea and other clubs with Cardiff presumably making money off rent. Probably not enough to bother about in the English leagues anyway.

The FAI half own the Aviva until 2069 under their agreement when it returns to the control of the IRFU. The Welsh FA has no control over Cardiff City's ground. SFA have a stake in Hampden Park Ltd so in a better situation than the Welsh FA but inferior to the FAI.

While more people will sympathise with Queens Park, if this is an attempt by the Scottish FA to gain more control over the stadium, I cannot blame them for trying. More control is always welcome and may give the SFA more ability to change/rebuild the ground as they see fit.

Personally don't blame the Scottish FA for trying it.

[Goalie Hamish]

12 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

There is a survey of Scotland fans being run on a Facebook page at present. 854 responses, 430 voting to stay at Hampden (either in present form or redeveloped), 424 voting to move. Opinion is split very much over Hampden.

There was another poll held the same day as that SFSA survey came out, on another TA FB page, just over 500 voted and 75% responded with stay at Hampden.  In think hard core Scotland fans on the whole want to stay, and they are the guys who use the stadium most apart from QP fans.

[Goalie Hamish]

45 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said:

While more people will sympathise with Queens Park, if this is an attempt by the Scottish FA to gain more control over the stadium, I cannot blame them for trying. More control is always welcome and may give the SFA more ability to change/rebuild the ground as they see fit.

Personally don't blame the Scottish FA for trying it.

Correct. Hampden - apart from South Stand - is ageing badly compared to modern stadia despite its much vaunted 5 star status (which means little to the paying fan).  I want to stay there but there needs to be a debate amongst all interested parties as to its future, and if it is "saved" how to redevelop it to stand the test of time, and how to look after QP's interests.

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

The SFA should buy Hampden kick QP out to Lesser Hampden then lease the stadium to Aberdeen.

[BucksburnDandy]

Correct. Hampden - apart from South Stand - is ageing badly compared to modern stadia despite its much vaunted 5 star status (which means little to the paying fan).  I want to stay there but there needs to be a debate amongst all interested parties as to its future, and if it is "saved" how to redevelop it to stand the test of time, and how to look after QP's interests.

Absolutely. It shows that the majority of the money at redevelopment went into the South Stand to the detriment of normal fans. I would prefer to stay at Hampden but with an appetite and some real support being shown to bring the stadium up to the best standard possible for the paying fan.

If that means the Scottish FA taking control to achieve it, all the better. It has to be improved to similar to countries like Ireland, Poland and Romania have standard wise.

[Ross.]

9 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

 

The FAI half own the Aviva until 2069 under their agreement when it returns to the control of the IRFU. The Welsh FA has no control over Cardiff City's ground. SFA have a stake in Hampden Park Ltd so in a better situation than the Welsh FA but inferior to the FAI.

While more people will sympathise with Queens Park, if this is an attempt by the Scottish FA to gain more control over the stadium, I cannot blame them for trying. More control is always welcome and may give the SFA more ability to change/rebuild the ground as they see fit.

Personally don't blame the Scottish FA for trying it.

I don't blame them either but if that is the aim, and I think it is, I really don't like the way they are going about it. Too much posturing and PR, when they should be setting things out straight from the start.

[SpoonTon]

12 hours ago, Goalie Hamish said:

Correct. Hampden - apart from South Stand - is ageing badly compared to modern stadia despite its much vaunted 5 star status (which means little to the paying fan).  I want to stay there but there needs to be a debate amongst all interested parties as to its future, and if it is "saved" how to redevelop it to stand the test of time, and how to look after QP's interests.

I wouldn't say that the North Stand is aging badly. It has seen improvements in recent years as well. 

[BucksburnDandy]

5 hours ago, Ross. said:

I don't blame them either but if that is the aim, and I think it is, I really don't like the way they are going about it. Too much posturing and PR, when they should be setting things out straight from the start.

 

It is a bit unseemly, however the Scottish FA will argue that the end justifies the means. At the end of the day, if they gain control over Hampden and the ability to release more commercial rights, it may well be a key driver in developing the place properly. The Queen's Park President does not seem to interested in upgrading Hampden, which is not surprising given money will be tight for the Spiders. However, fans clearly do want a better Hampden.

 

As such, the Scottish FA would be justified in trying to push for ownership of the place. If QP do want a viable Hampden, they need the Scottish FA. Scotland is not the sort of place where too many outdoor concerts can be held, and athletics will not be viable in the long run.

 

Yes, it is harsh on QP, but for the long term good of Hampden, the ability to do commercial deals to raise finance to redevelop is a no brainer.

[Ross.]

2 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said:

 

It is a bit unseemly, however the Scottish FA will argue that the end justifies the means. At the end of the day, if they gain control over Hampden and the ability to release more commercial rights, it may well be a key driver in developing the place properly. The Queen's Park President does not seem to interested in upgrading Hampden, which is not surprising given money will be tight for the Spiders. However, fans clearly do want a better Hampden.

 

As such, the Scottish FA would be justified in trying to push for ownership of the place. If QP do want a viable Hampden, they need the Scottish FA. Scotland is not the sort of place where too many outdoor concerts can be held, and athletics will not be viable in the long run.

 

Yes, it is harsh on QP, but for the long term good of Hampden, the ability to do commercial deals to raise finance to redevelop is a no brainer.

I agree with all of what you are saying, I just think it would be better for the SFA to come out and state that explicitly from the start, if of course that is the long term aim. If anything it would get more folk on their side.

[BucksburnDandy]

1 minute ago, Ross. said:

I agree with all of what you are saying, I just think it would be better for the SFA to come out and state that explicitly from the start, if of course that is the long term aim. If anything it would get more folk on their side.

Tend to agree but they will also say they don't want to give away their negotiating stance. They want the threat of leaving held over QP, if they state that is their aim in public, the SRU and OF could cool their interest and it leaves QP in a stronger place.