Hampden or Murrayfield

[craigkillie]

8 minutes ago, AberdeenHibee said:

• IT IS IN THE CAPITAL CITY. LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. 

Two of our five away games in the last campaign were played outside of the capital cities. We played Malta in Ta'Qali and Slovakia in Trnava.

[Bishop Briggs]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Can't be done at Hampden as there is a burn that runs under the pitch. I guess it could be re-routed in some sort of culvert or sewer type of arrangement but that would be an added expense and engineering problem.
 

 

 

 

So digging down can be done albeit at extra cost. I doubt that it add a lot to the total cost of adding seats and more facilities. IIRC, Hampden's conversion cost for the 2014 Commonwealth games was around £14 million. 

In any case, this size of space behind the goals is totally unacceptable. 

The only alternatives to Hampden  are Parkhead and Ibrox. The Ugly Sisters get too much money already. The SFA must come up with a cost-effective solution for Hampden.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Fucking typical.

Quote

Hampden v Murrayfield: Scottish FA delay Scotland games decision

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45344636

[Salvo Montalbano]

So digging down can be done albeit at extra cost. I doubt that it add a lot to the total cost of adding seats and more facilities. IIRC, Hampden's conversion cost for the 2014 Commonwealth games was around £14 million. 
In any case, this size of space behind the goals is totally unacceptable. 

The only alternatives to Hampden  are Parkhead and Ibrox. The Ugly Sisters get too much money already. The SFA must come up with a cost-effective solution for Hampden.

I'm guessing it can be re-routed - I'm not a civil or structural engineer. Even if it can, the cost of digging down (which would mean that the rake of the seats in North Stand would be too shallow) would be prohibitive I'd have thought - at Manchester it was built with the lower tiers being added later in the plan from the start (the end stand at one end was a temporary stand like you'd see at the golf) and cost £44 million to convert from athletics to football. And that was in 2002.

[eez-eh]

18 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

So digging down can be done albeit at extra cost. I doubt that it add a lot to the total cost of adding seats and more facilities. IIRC, Hampden's conversion cost for the 2014 Commonwealth games was around £14 million. 

In any case, this size of space behind the goals is totally unacceptable. 

The only alternatives to Hampden  are Parkhead and Ibrox. The Ugly Sisters get too much money already. The SFA must come up with a cost-effective solution for Hampden.

Anyone who looks at that photo and says "Murrayfield gives much better views than Hampden" is talking out their arse.

Just now, Zen Archer said:

Fucking typical.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45344636

Nothing but a ploy to try get QP to reduce the asking price even further.

[ftk]

In a country where football and rugby are our 2 biggest spectator sports the sfa and sru need to come together to fund a new modern stadium. Do rugby fans even like Murrayfield? It's the worst stadium out of the 6 nations (apart from maybe Italy don't know where they play these days?).

A new national stadium is a must. Get a mortgage/ loan (big one) and get it built!

[7-2]

I genuinely cannot believe that any follower of Scottish football thinks the SFA would actually move from Hampden and, more importantly, Glasgow. It simply will not happen. 

[AberdeenHibee]

11 minutes ago, 7-2 said:

I genuinely cannot believe that any follower of Scottish football thinks the SFA would actually move from Hampden and, more importantly, Glasgow. It simply will not happen. 

Because it is simply too sensible a decision?

[D.A.F.C]

Hampden is a dated shitehole and Murrayfield is better but it's not a football stadium.

Ideally sell Hampden and move to parkhead and revamp the main stand and facilities with the cash.

 

[jagfox]

3 hours ago, Jdog said:

Move to Murrayfield, then Murrayfield can buy Hampdens history, then everybody's happy!

Scotco?

[MJC]

It has to be Hampden. The best stadium in the country.

[Mastermind]

My fear about redeveloping Hampden is that we'd almost certainly do a bad job of it. They'd probably leave massive gaps in the corners, in our uniquely shite way of building stadiums.

This should really say we’d do a bad job of it...again.

We had the chance around 20 years ago to get it right and get a world class stadium while retaining the history. For whatever reason it was a complete incompetent shambles and now we are left either staying at an embarrassing, dated ground which the fans seem to loathe, or moving to a rugby stadium. Meanwhile Wembley, the Millennium Stadium and the Aviva have all been properly redeveloped and are fantastic stadia.

What a mess.

[8MileBU]

Heart says Hampden.

Head says Murrayfield.

Reasoning says bin the two of them and play around the grounds.

[DA Baracus]

Get any and all talk of having games at Ibrox and Celtic Park so far to f**k. 

f**k giving those scumbag cretins any more money and any more of an advantage.

Anyone who advocates this route is a moron.

[HoBNob]

2 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

So digging down can be done albeit at extra cost. I doubt that it add a lot to the total cost of adding seats and more facilities. IIRC, Hampden's conversion cost for the 2014 Commonwealth games was around £14 million. 

In any case, this size of space behind the goals is totally unacceptable. 

The only alternatives to Hampden  are Parkhead and Ibrox. The Ugly Sisters get too much money already. The SFA must come up with a cost-effective solution for Hampden.

As has been mentioned plenty of times, the pitch can be bigger than that, however it was done to match Tynecastles dimensions. 

[eez-eh]

6 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Get any and all talk of having games at Ibrox and Celtic Park so far to f**k. 

f**k giving those scumbag cretins any more money and any more of an advantage.

Anyone who advocates this route is a moron.

I don't want the games played there purely for that reason, but I can understand why some might given they're both far better stadia than Hampden.

Calling anyone who advocates it a moron is just typical modern-day hyperbole where everything has to be black or white.

3 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

As has been mentioned plenty of times, the pitch can be bigger than that, however it was done to match Tynecastles dimensions. 

A few metres either way doesn't change that 3 of the stands are still miles away from the pitch.

[Estragon]

2 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I don't want the games played there purely for that reason, but I can understand why some might given they're both far better stadia than Hampden.

Calling anyone who advocates it a moron is just typical modern-day hyperbole where everything has to be black or white.

If they'd known black was an option I'm not sure Celtic would have offered.

[Bishop Briggs]

12 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

As has been mentioned plenty of times, the pitch can be bigger than that, however it was done to match Tynecastles dimensions. 

From the Evening News - https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-make-bt-murrayfield-pitch-same-width-as-tynecastle-1-4553961

“The width is the same as Tynecastle but, because of the positioning of the goalposts, the length of the pitch is five metres longer. The width is going to be the same but just longer at the ends,” explained manager Craig Levein, whose second stint in charge of Hearts begins against Aberdeen following his appointment last week.

Here's the picture from the Barcelona friendly that was posted earlier on this thread.

 

Yet again, a huge gap behind the goals.

 

[D.A.F.C]

13 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I don't want the games played there purely for that reason, but I can understand why some might given they're both far better stadia than Hampden.

Calling anyone who advocates it a moron is just typical modern-day hyperbole where everything has to be black or white.

A few metres either way doesn't change that 3 of the stands are still miles away from the pitch.

Don’t get me wrong I hate the OF but what real alternative is there? Hampden needs rebuilt, with what money? Murrayfield is better but again too much space behind the goals. The ideal situation is to rebuild Hampden but then that makes three great stadiums in a relatively small city. 

The second best option is building a new stadium outside Glasgow, again with what money?

So only three options

continue with shit hampden or shit murrayfield

Tour Scotland games around the country and sell off hampden

Sell of hampden and move, park head is the only option as ibrox is probably too small.

As for the talk of history, what history? We’ve never won anything ever.

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

Whit