Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[forameus]

Don't we usually have like 30000 SSC members?  I'd imagine with numbers like that, they'd be pretty against putting it in any stadium that doesn't have that many seats.  They're thick as shit, but they're not quite thick enough to try and sell a membership while at the same time taking away the one actual selling point it has.  That all being the case, we're down to "moving around the country" being "moving between the South side and East End of Glasgow.  Yay.  Cannae wait for all the chat of how it's "pyoor unfair byraway, Porkheid/Ibrokes got a bigger game than us, purecafflik/proddyconspiracysoitis"

Edited August 2, 2018 by forameus

[SpoonTon]

3 hours ago, TheScarf said:

Yep, get the Scotland games all around the country; Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, even Kilmarnock for games against the lesser sides like Gibraltar or Malta.   There's nothing worse than seeing 20,000 in a 52,000 capacity stadium.

Wales did it with the Millenium, when they were half decent in sort of 2002-2006 and they were beating Italy and Russia, the Millennium looked great.  The FAW then realised, once it appeared they were pish again,  2006-2011ish, they should move the games to the Cardiff City stadium.  A far better football venue and it looks and sounds great when it's full for a qualifier or a friendly.

The home game against Gibraltar had an attendance of 34255. You want to move a game like that to a stadium with a capacity about half that size and play on a pretty poor artificial surface? There is nothing to be gained from that.

When Wales were struggling, they had many competitive home matches with crowds of under 15,000, and even dipped below 10,000. They made the decision to move to a stadium with a capacity of 33,280. This could be perfect was smaller Scotland matches, which tend to get around 30,000, but there are two problems. It's incredibly difficult to actually predict what matches will be smaller (the opposition might be lowly but the game might be important) and, well, there are no stadiums in Scotland with a capacity like the Cardiff City Stadium. 

It's like some people actually want to drive down interest in attending Scotland matches, and turn it into something smaller than it actually is. That's a damaging mindset IMO. 

What's completely inappropriate is the thinking that we could use the likes of Murrayfield and Easter Road. Here are the attendances at our last 20 home competitive matches:

46773

26371

48520

20435

35966

49359

50753

34255

59329 (CP)

34719 (IB)

30172

40284

39365

32430

47369

34071

51564

51322

37050

51230

And some people think the best plan is to switch games between a stadium which holds 67144 and one which holds 20421? I'm struggling to see the logic. You could argue for better atmosphere at smaller grounds, etc., but at the expense of over 10,000 fans in most cases?  Well attended matches is one of the few things we actually ave going for us, why would we want to mess with that?

[forameus]

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

The home game against Gibraltar had an attendance of 34255. You want to move a game like that to a stadium with a capacity about half that size and play on a pretty poor artificial surface? There is nothing to be gained from that.

When Wales were struggling, they had many competitive home matches with crowds of under 15,000, and even dipped below 10,000. They made the decision to move to a stadium with a capacity of 33,280. This could be perfect was smaller Scotland matches, which tend to get around 30,000, but there are two problems. It's incredibly difficult to actually predict what matches will be smaller (the opposition might be lowly but the game might be important) and, well, there are no stadiums in Scotland with a capacity like the Cardiff City Stadium. 

The Wales example is a good one.  GIven that Rugby was/is more important to them as a country, it always seemed like their potential football support was quite fickle.  You would get the usual core that would attend no matter what their fortunes, but they had the potential to really ramp up their attendances when they were doing well.  For the 2002 qualifying campaign, they started off really strong.  65k and 71k for two friendlies early in the year (granted, second was against Brazil), then 53k for their first qualifier.  Then 49, 48, 20(!), and then just 10201 as the campaign wound down to nothing.  2004 campaign was when they got the playoffs, and had strong attendances throughout before they got put out.  Some pretty poor attendances over the next few years, with only 30k turning out when Germany visited, then regularly in the low 20s, even down into the teens for qualifiers.  Last scheduled match at that stadium that I can see seated 14,505 against Russia (they got pumped).   EDIT: Just saw one against England, understandable why they moved that one.  After that they moved to Cardiff City's stadium, but even then it took some actual success for them to start packing it out.  After 2016, they've just about sold out each game.

I don't think we're that comparable to them though.  We were never quite as bad as Wales were back then, but I'd imagine even if we did, we'd still be packing in a decent number into a game.  If we had something in the 30-40k range, I'd be more inclined to do similar for a new campaign and restructure the SSC.  Make sure we sell out pretty much every game, rather than only the big ones.  I have never been at a Scotland game with as weird an atmosphere as that GIbraltar game, those ones really need something different than a half-empty echoing Hampden

[SpoonTon]

33 minutes ago, forameus said:

The Wales example is a good one.  GIven that Rugby was/is more important to them as a country, it always seemed like their potential football support was quite fickle.  You would get the usual core that would attend no matter what their fortunes, but they had the potential to really ramp up their attendances when they were doing well.  For the 2002 qualifying campaign, they started off really strong.  65k and 71k for two friendlies early in the year (granted, second was against Brazil), then 53k for their first qualifier.  Then 49, 48, 20(!), and then just 10201 as the campaign wound down to nothing.  2004 campaign was when they got the playoffs, and had strong attendances throughout before they got put out.  Some pretty poor attendances over the next few years, with only 30k turning out when Germany visited, then regularly in the low 20s, even down into the teens for qualifiers.  Last scheduled match at that stadium that I can see seated 14,505 against Russia (they got pumped).   EDIT: Just saw one against England, understandable why they moved that one.  After that they moved to Cardiff City's stadium, but even then it took some actual success for them to start packing it out.  After 2016, they've just about sold out each game.

I don't think we're that comparable to them though.  We were never quite as bad as Wales were back then, but I'd imagine even if we did, we'd still be packing in a decent number into a game.  If we had something in the 30-40k range, I'd be more inclined to do similar for a new campaign and restructure the SSC.  Make sure we sell out pretty much every game, rather than only the big ones.  I have never been at a Scotland game with as weird an atmosphere as that GIbraltar game, those ones really need something different than a half-empty echoing Hampden

That's because we were playing the international equivalent of a pub team on a sunny Sunday afternoon in early spring. It would have been a weird atmosphere in a full stadium. We won the match 6-1 - job done and nothing to really be concerned about with regards to the stadium. 

[forameus]

2 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

That's because we were playing the international equivalent of a pub team on a sunny Sunday afternoon in early spring. It would have been a weird atmosphere in a full stadium. We won the match 6-1 - job done and nothing to really be concerned about with regards to the stadium. 

It wasn't really a point for or against the stadium really, just a general comment that it was a really odd atmosphere.  Probably didn't help I was sitting fucking miles away from where I usually did, because f**k paying North/South stand prices they were charging for that game.

[GordonS]

My own preferences based on knowing nothing, but having grown up near Hampden and it feeling like a second home, and also having season passes for Murrayfield:

1) Reconstructed Hampden with pitch dug down to bring stands closer, and ends rebuilt like Stuttgart did;

2) Reconstructed Murrayfield with pitch dug down to bring stands closer - even by rugby standards the pitch at Murrayfield has huge in-goal areas, and there's still 10 yards to the front row of seating, plus the running track in front of the West Stand;

3) Murrayfield as it is;

4) Hampden as it is;

5) Going on the road to Parkhead and Ibrox.

But we know f**k all. We don't know how much the maintenance at Hampden will be over the next 30 years; we don't know how much it will cost to buy, or to lease, over the next  30 years; we don't know how much Murrayfield will charge; we don't know how much it will cost to mothball, re-purpose or demolish Hampden, or how much could be made from alternative uses; we don't know how much it would cost to turn Hampden into a decent stadium, or how such a rebuild could be funded.

Because the SFA tell us nothing.

As I've said before, the SFA should produce a consultation paper, like a government would, setting out all the facts and all the options, and seek opinions. Apart from being the right thing to do as custodians of the national team, this would mean that fans couldn't blame the SFA if they went with a consensus option - it would be on us.

Instead we'll be kept in the dark, we'll be informed what the decision was without any reasoning, and all complaints from us plebs will be dismissed as griping from the cheap seats.

[Jaggy Snake]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Instead we'll be kept in the dark, we'll be informed what the decision was without any reasoning, and all complaints from us plebs will be dismissed as griping from the cheap seats.

They'd need to cut the prices in half before there was anything approaching cheap seats.

[eez-eh]

We’d probably get a bit closer to selling out the lesser games too, if the SFA didn’t have the brass neck to charge £40 a pop against shite like Lithuania

[forameus]

17 hours ago, eez-eh said:

We’d probably get a bit closer to selling out the lesser games too, if the SFA didn’t have the brass neck to charge £40 a pop against shite like Lithuania

That's actually one thing they seem to have gotten right so far with this campaign.  They got a massive hard-on for getting the money up front with their season tickets, waving an England-game-shaped-carrot in front of us to persuade.  But that meant that later on in the campaign when they had a tough sell of a game, they couldn't do any kind of reduction in prices to attract people who just fancied a game.  Even as someone who bought a season ticket, I would've understood if they had reduced prices, but it still would've been shit to end up paying more overall because of their shitty planning.

This time around they don't seem to be offering anything like that, which is a good thing.  Stay quiet about prices, take each game as it comes and set the prices at a level that you think will give the best chance of filling the stadium, rather than sit there thinking "what's the absolute maximum we can charge?"

[Blootoon87]

They are offering a four game season ticket for the Nations League and friendly games. No idea what it'll cost as they're taking their time announcing it.

[banana]

Just now, Blootoon87 said:

They are offering a four game season ticket for the Nations League and friendly games. No idea what it'll cost as they're taking their time announcing it.

When's the first game?

[Blootoon87]

When's the first game?

Belgium at home on the 7th of September.

[forameus]

40 minutes ago, Blootoon87 said:

They are offering a four game season ticket for the Nations League and friendly games. No idea what it'll cost as they're taking their time announcing it.

Oh for...I take it back then, probably the same mistakes as last time then.

[banana]

3 hours ago, Blootoon87 said:

3 hours ago, banana said:

When's the first game?

Belgium at home on the 7th of September.

A month away and still no announcement, shambles 

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

I want to hear more from the nutters (usually from Stirling) that think a new national stadium should be built in Stirling. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Barry Ferguson's Hat

[Peppino Impastato]

2 hours ago, Barry Ferguson's Hat said:

I want to hear more from the nutters (usually from Stirling) that think a new national stadium should be built in Stirling. 

Clearly the ideal solution is a floating stadium in loch Ness

[banana]

4 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Clearly the ideal solution is a floating stadium in loch Ness

Noob.

Underwater stadium in Loch Ness. On wheels.

[Peppino Impastato]

8 minutes ago, banana said:

Noob.

Underwater stadium in Loch Ness. On wheels.

That's just not practical

[HoBNob]

On 7/28/2018 at 09:50, 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.

 

On 7/28/2018 at 10:39, Gordopolis said:

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?

 

 

I still agree with the SFA tbh, if this was a "larger" side would we still be so keen for the SFA to be throwing money at a member club? What if the Tennant was Celtic/Rangers? Would we be keen for the SFA to overpay or would we be wanting the SFA to get the best possible price? 

 

I'd imagine that everyone is critical of how the SFA distributes money, I'm fully behind them trying to get the best price so that they can then waste the money on something else tbh. 

[No_Problemo]

 
I still agree with the SFA tbh, if this was a "larger" side would we still be so keen for the SFA to be throwing money at a member club? What if the Tennant was Celtic/Rangers? Would we be keen for the SFA to overpay or would we be wanting the SFA to get the best possible price? 
 
I'd imagine that everyone is critical of how the SFA distributes money, I'm fully behind them trying to get the best price so that they can then waste the money on something else tbh. 

Well of course we wouldn’t be bothered if it was Celtic or Rangers, however we all know the SFA wouldn’t do something like this to them.

They are doing this because Queens Park are a smaller club and are quite happy basically threatening a Scottish club with going out of business.