Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[Gordopolis]

12 minutes ago, Poet of the Macabre said:

Can't understand how anyone can love Hampden. It's a terrible stadium that lives off the reputation of the ground it was in the 70s.

That's its main plus point  - heritage and memories. It's also in a decent location hotel and pub-wise. I love it for what it is, but it's time to move on - we could do so much better than that big, old yawning arena.

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, Poet of the Macabre said:

Can't understand how anyone can love Hampden. It's a terrible stadium that lives off the reputation of the ground it was in the 70s.

The North Stand is a great place to watch football. There's nothing wrong with the South Stand in terms being a main stand at a ground like that. I can understand why people wouldn't like to be low down behind the goals, and would love to see those end redeveloped, but I don't quite understand why some people seem to hate it so much. 

[come on shire]

Scotland needs a 3rd professional rugby team imho.  If the SRU can get the money to support this by opening the doors to the Scotland footy team and domestic cup finals then I'm all for it.  Whether this move happens or not remains to be seen... 

[HibeeJibee]

3 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

The North Stand is a great place to watch football. There's nothing wrong with the South Stand in terms being a main stand at a ground like that. I can understand why people wouldn't like to be low down behind the goals, and would love to see those end redeveloped, but I don't quite understand why some people seem to hate it so much. 

Given the alternative is almost certainly alternating between Ibrox & Parkhead, they should be careful what they wish for, too.

There isn't the cash to rebuild Hampden... all the indications are there isn't the practicality or desire to move everything (maybe anything) into Murrayfield, in Edinburgh, paying presumably a higher rent.

[Enigma]

Murrayfield>Hamden>>>>>>>>Ibrox and Parkhead

[dogmc]

Given the alternative is almost certainly alternating between Ibrox & Parkhead, they should be careful what they wish for, too.

There isn't the cash to rebuild Hampden... all the indications are there isn't the practicality or desire to move everything (maybe anything) into Murrayfield, in Edinburgh, paying presumably a higher rent.

And that's the crucial point. If the SFA can't afford to find a mgr that may require compo to be paid then there is no way a new stadium will happen. There also won't be cash to cover the higher rental costs of Murray field/ Ibrox/ park head plus office stuff. It'll carry on being Hampden as its cheapest option.

[GiGi]

On 31/10/2017 at 13:48, Enigma said:

Murrayfield>Hamden>>>>>>>>Ibrox and Parkhead

Can't comment on Murrayfield but having watched Scotland games in the other 3 I can't agree with that at all. Fair enough if you just hate the clubs but other than the stigma they are better football stadiums. 

Ibrox is a bit of a tip at the moment right enough.

[paul-r-cfc]

For those complaining about the goals being too far away and Hampden yet advocating Murrayfield, have you seen any of the football games there this season? Equally massive gap behind the goals once you get rid of the try zone or whatever the egg tossing tories call it

[RandomGuy.]

For those complaining about the goals being too far away and Hampden yet advocating Murrayfield, have you seen any of the football games there this season? Equally massive gap behind the goals once you get rid of the try zone or whatever the egg tossing tories call it

This, the view from behind the goals is absolutely brutal

[gannonball]

23 hours ago, paul-r-cfc said:

For those complaining about the goals being too far away and Hampden yet advocating Murrayfield, have you seen any of the football games there this season? Equally massive gap behind the goals once you get rid of the try zone or whatever the egg tossing tories call it

Yes Murrayfield for being a football ground it has its faults but having watched football there it is still better than hampden. You are srill far away but generally higher up so you get a better view. It being steeper makes it a better atmosphere too , has better transport links and more pubs near by. Its a no brainer for me.

[forameus]

Do we really want to pay all the money that presumably Murrayfield would cost to use just because "meh it's got problems, but it's better than hampden" though? Seems like we've got an array of shitty options of which staying at hampden is probably edging just in front.

We either give regular money to the old firm and get 1 great and 1 good stadium for games, but end up having childish tantrums every time one cheek thinks the other is being favoured. Or we give money to the SRU, and (purely selfishly) have a bit of a nightmare journey to get there from Glasgow . I doubt scotrail will give a shit about putting on extra trains, so everyone going back West from Haymarket would have a nightmare. Takes me til about 1130 to get back to Bearsden from Hampden, dread to think what it'd be from Murrayfield. And the views far from perfect.

[dogmc]

Do we really want to pay all the money that presumably Murrayfield would cost to use just because "meh it's got problems, but it's better than hampden" though? Seems like we've got an array of shitty options of which staying at hampden is probably edging just in front.

We either give regular money to the old firm and get 1 great and 1 good stadium for games, but end up having childish tantrums every time one cheek thinks the other is being favoured. Or we give money to the SRU, and (purely selfishly) have a bit of a nightmare journey to get there from Glasgow . I doubt scotrail will give a shit about putting on extra trains, so everyone going back West from Haymarket would have a nightmare. Takes me til about 1130 to get back to Bearsden from Hampden, dread to think what it'd be from Murrayfield. And the views far from perfect.

Quite a lot of Scotland fans wont be travelling from Glasgow.....in all seriousness i cant see the financial justification for the sfa to move. As has been said it isnt just a case of cost of leasing murrayfield/ibrox/parkhead for games its also cost of leasing office space. There's not gonna be money for a new stadium so i cant see anything other than status quo being maintained

[invergowrie arab]

On 07/10/2017 at 13:27, Paco said:

 

Are you able to name a U.K railway station ready for anywhere between twenty and forty thousand people showing up at the same time?

 

Wembley.

Takes about 15 minutes from getting to station to get on an express train into city centre but given London's train system they can have dozens of trains lined up to go on multiple lines.

[gannonball]

Do we really want to pay all the money that presumably Murrayfield would cost to use just because "meh it's got problems, but it's better than hampden" though? Seems like we've got an array of shitty options of which staying at hampden is probably edging just in front.

We either give regular money to the old firm and get 1 great and 1 good stadium for games, but end up having childish tantrums every time one cheek thinks the other is being favoured. Or we give money to the SRU, and (purely selfishly) have a bit of a nightmare journey to get there from Glasgow . I doubt scotrail will give a shit about putting on extra trains, so everyone going back West from Haymarket would have a nightmare. Takes me til about 1130 to get back to Bearsden from Hampden, dread to think what it'd be from Murrayfield. And the views far from perfect.

We dont own Hampden either so we have to pay for that too. Cant see a massive difference paying for Hampden or Murrayfield to be honest so your first argument is invalid really.

Regarding transport,Murrayfield has better transport links than Hampden as a whole with a main train station,trams and good bus services. It also has a decent sized bus park.

And as I mentioned earlier the view is far from perfect at Murrayfield but having experience football games at both grounds I would say its still better than Hampden for that.

Other than history Hampden really cant beat Murrayfield for any aspect that a football fan is looking for in a stadium. Thats not to say Murrayfield is fantastic for football,just Hampden is that sh*te.

[HibeeJibee]

2 hours ago, gannonball said:

We dont own Hampden either so we have to pay for that too. Cant see a massive difference paying for Hampden or Murrayfield to be honest so your first argument is invalid really.

Tbf, SFA rent Hampden from QP for a few hundred £ or whatever it is. This would almost certainly be less than Murrayfield would cost, but lets leave that by-the-by.

Having rented Hampden they get accommodation for their offices, museum, sports injuries centre, etc.

They also host all of their internationals, cup SFs and Final; receive rental from SPFL for their League Cup SFs and Final; and can (and do) sell it left right 'n centre for concerts, dinners, etc.

They also pocket the cheques from big events like EL Finals, Commonealth Games, Euro 2020, etc.

If you rent Murrayfield you're not getting that accommodation or those income streams.

Nor, I'd suggest, would they be renting Murrayfield for everything - given factors like crowds and availability. So multiple rentals - many on an ad hoc basis - without efficiencies of scale.

Edited November 5, 2017 by HibeeJibee

[Lurkst]

Witnessed fitba at Murrayfield for the first time today. It's not a great football stadium, they don't even sell pies FFS. Hampden must stay if that's the alternative.

 

[forameus]

23 hours ago, dogmc said:

Quite a lot of Scotland fans wont be travelling from Glasgow.....in all seriousness i cant see the financial justification for the sfa to move. As has been said it isnt just a case of cost of leasing murrayfield/ibrox/parkhead for games its also cost of leasing office space. There's not gonna be money for a new stadium so i cant see anything other than status quo being maintained

Yeah, I did say purely selfishly though for the travel part.  For a lot of people, hosting it in Edinburgh would be a good thing.  

15 hours ago, gannonball said:

We dont own Hampden either so we have to pay for that too. Cant see a massive difference paying for Hampden or Murrayfield to be honest so your first argument is invalid really.

Regarding transport,Murrayfield has better transport links than Hampden as a whole with a main train station,trams and good bus services. It also has a decent sized bus park.

And as I mentioned earlier the view is far from perfect at Murrayfield but having experience football games at both grounds I would say its still better than Hampden for that.

Other than history Hampden really cant beat Murrayfield for any aspect that a football fan is looking for in a stadium. Thats not to say Murrayfield is fantastic for football,just Hampden is that sh*te.
 

 

 

As HJ put it, Murrayfield would cost more than Hampden does currently, so it isn't invalid.

I know Murrayfield has better transport links, but I'd still find it easier to get to and from Hampden from my perspective (and that's all I was posting from).  

[Gordopolis]

Witnessed fitba at Murrayfield for the first time today. It's not a great football stadium, they don't even sell pies FFS. Hampden must stay if that's the alternative.
 

What did you get instead: avocado and humous dip with crudités?

[Jason King]

Beer bottle up his arse - for that additional earthy kick.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1790311/scotland-rugby-ace-peter-howe-garry-howe-banned/

[velo army]

Just watched the highlights of the Hearts-Killie game (which looked superb by the way). The atmosphere in Murrayfield was excellent, despite being about a third full. It's a no-brainer for me, which means, of course, that the SFA won't go for it. I understand the thing about office space and the other things, but really from a fan's point of view the whole experience of going to the football will be much more enjoyable at Murrayfield. The transport links have been mentioned and are an obvious plus, the accoustics of Murrayfield are far superior to Hampden (you get that thing where you experience the sound bouncing off the walls when the old place is full and rocking), and it's within easy (and very, very pleasant) walking distance from the city centre of Edinburgh. 

Going back to the admin/office expenses side, I don't know what the solution to this would be, but other major football associations have their headquarters away from their national stadia (if there was no space for SFA offices at Murrayfield) so finding office space in Edinburgh (or Glasgow for that matter) shouldn't be hard. 

I've long felt it was ludicrous that a country of our size has two stadia for international sport when France (population 66.9m) has the Stade de France for both. Long term wouldn't it make much more financial sense than continuing with the status quo?

For me the major consideration is accoustics and atmosphere. Even a half full Murrayfield is louder than a mostly full Hampden. A full Murrayfield is a cauldron. It'll be great.