Stadium and pitch investment

[lubo_blaha]

Based on Maxwell’s comments today, I wouldn’t expect significant changes to the stadium any time soon.

[Gordon EF]

What's the prize money for winning the Euros?

[LoonsYouthTeam]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

What's the prize money for winning the Euros?

Better be enough to cover a week off work for everybody 

[Theyellowbox]

2 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

Based on Maxwell’s comments today, I wouldn’t expect significant changes to the stadium any time soon.

Another piece of sheer short sightedness by those running the game here. Nothings broke, so need to fix it. Only it is broken, bleeding £2m p.a and climbing.

Not only cost avoidance by redeveloping, but losing out on additional revenue too via ticket sales and hospitality etc. 

[lubo_blaha]

42 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Another piece of sheer short sightedness by those running the game here. Nothings broke, so need to fix it. Only it is broken, bleeding £2m p.a and climbing.

Not only cost avoidance by redeveloping, but losing out on additional revenue too via ticket sales and hospitality etc. 

it’s not short sightedness at all. Everyone within Hampden is well aware of its shortcomings. The SFA aren’t sitting on £100mil and choosing not to spend it on Hampden.

The key questions are 1. Where could they  get this kind of money from? and 2. Would redeveloping Hampden be the best way to spend such a figure?.

[Molotov]

2 hours ago, LoonsYouthTeam said:

Better be enough to cover a week off work for everybody 

Only a week? 

[Theyellowbox]

13 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

it’s not short sightedness at all. Everyone within Hampden is well aware of its shortcomings. The SFA aren’t sitting on £100mil and choosing not to spend it on Hampden.

The key questions are 1. Where could they  get this kind of money from? and 2. Would redeveloping Hampden be the best way to spend such a figure?.

It is short sighted. I'd agree if we were sitting in a stadium thst could exist as is with maintenance spend for the next 10-20 years, but it really isn't. When it was redeveloped, the main stand aside, it was done half arsed and on the cheap. Its going to only get more and more expensive to stand still.

As to where the SFA get the cash? Same way as every other nation. Combinations of loans, private investment and future revenues. When it was redeveloped last time, debentures were used, could do that too.

I'd it the best use of the finances? I'd argue it is. Its laughable that Maxwell said that the cash should be used to 'grow the game'!! Eem, it's the biggest sport in the country and not exactly unknown to the population. Do the rebuild, add educational facilities and use them to educate kids on sport.

Reality is, we will need to do it sooner rather than later, so why hold off.  Don't underestimate the power of the owners of the two other big stadiums in Glasgow. Both would rather see ot gone for their own gains, to let it become run down is to their advantage.

 

[lubo_blaha]

19 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

It is short sighted. I'd agree if we were sitting in a stadium thst could exist as is with maintenance spend for the next 10-20 years, but it really isn't. When it was redeveloped, the main stand aside, it was done half arsed and on the cheap. Its going to only get more and more expensive to stand still.

As to where the SFA get the cash? Same way as every other nation. Combinations of loans, private investment and future revenues. When it was redeveloped last time, debentures were used, could do that too.

I'd it the best use of the finances? I'd argue it is. Its laughable that Maxwell said that the cash should be used to 'grow the game'!! Eem, it's the biggest sport in the country and not exactly unknown to the population. Do the rebuild, add educational facilities and use them to educate kids on sport.

Reality is, we will need to do it sooner rather than later, so why hold off.  Don't underestimate the power of the owners of the two other big stadiums in Glasgow. Both would rather see ot gone for their own gains, to let it become run down is to their advantage.

 

From the sound of things there would’ve been money available on the back of a World Cup bid which won’t be available for a Euro bid which is why he’s said there aren’t plans in place currently. 

If you look at the business case for a redevelopment, I’m not convinced it stacks up. You’re not going to raise capacity significantly and it wouldn’t be a unique venue even just within Glasgow. The benefits would be a better view for 50% of the crowd and lower maintenance costs. To increase future revenues, you’re looking at a bigger hospitality offering (there’s already a good % of the ground dedicated to this) and higher ticket prices which I’m sure would go down well. You could argue that they could have more concerts and things like that as well but they’ve had 3/4 concerts every summer since they bought the ground and if anything the capacity for these would decrease if you brought the ends in. 

Growing the game obviously isn’t about making more people aware of football. It’s about giving more people a suitable place to play the game. It’s about getting more girls and other underrepresented groups involved more. It’s about arresting the slide of amateur and Sunday league teams folding. For the redevelopment cost, you could build a new 3G pitch in every local authority in the country. It’s valid to question what the best option would be out of the two.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

It’s also worth noting that of that £2m, a significant amount of that is PPM costs that are fixed no matter how much your stadium costs. You’re not going to make your £100m back in 50 years by savings in maintenance. I’m doubtful that any real maintenance savings would be made - new buildings and structures still cost a fortune to maintain.

[Ray Patterson]

The argument is that by having a better stadium you can attract better non-matchday events, and increase the possibility of hosting European finals, especially if there's a small expansion included.

[tree house tam]

I'm all for our countries capital hosting our national stadium. A purpose built theatre of dreams.

[Theyellowbox]

3 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

From the sound of things there would’ve been money available on the back of a World Cup bid which won’t be available for a Euro bid which is why he’s said there aren’t plans in place currently. 

If you look at the business case for a redevelopment, I’m not convinced it stacks up. You’re not going to raise capacity significantly and it wouldn’t be a unique venue even just within Glasgow. The benefits would be a better view for 50% of the crowd and lower maintenance costs. To increase future revenues, you’re looking at a bigger hospitality offering (there’s already a good % of the ground dedicated to this) and higher ticket prices which I’m sure would go down well. You could argue that they could have more concerts and things like that as well but they’ve had 3/4 concerts every summer since they bought the ground and if anything the capacity for these would decrease if you brought the ends in. 

Growing the game obviously isn’t about making more people aware of football. It’s about giving more people a suitable place to play the game. It’s about getting more girls and other underrepresented groups involved more. It’s about arresting the slide of amateur and Sunday league teams folding. For the redevelopment cost, you could build a new 3G pitch in every local authority in the country. It’s valid to question what the best option would be out of the two.

Totally agree that you'd need to see either an increase in ticket cost, increase in capacity or increase in hospitality, which I think all 3 would need to be true.

I'd love to be able to accept the argument of not spending £100m and investing it in facilities around the country, only the SFA hasn't done that and I'd be pretty confident in saying they won't.

You could argue its not the SFA's place to. Local clubs and local authorities should be the ones developing them. The SFA should (and do) provide the framework and coaching, but that wouldn't cost anywhere near the cost of redevelopment, even over 25 years.

[ClydeTon]

53 minutes ago, tree house tam said:

I'm all for our countries capital hosting our national stadium. A purpose built theatre of dreams.

Glasgow is the football capital of Scotland, so it's already there.

[tree house tam]

10 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

Glasgow is the football capital of Scotland, so it's already there.

Glasgow is the capital of f**k all, it's just a provincial backwater.

[ClydeTon]

53 minutes ago, tree house tam said:

Glasgow is the capital of f**k all, it's just a provincial backwater.

Fair Point.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

3 hours ago, tree house tam said:

I'm all for our countries capital hosting our national stadium. A purpose built theatre of dreams.

should have went the the SRU proposal to share murrayfield. folk would get used to it eventually.

Sports stadiums must be difficult business models as they cost a lot of money and sit empty for the vast majority of the time and national venues even more so, just share the overheads and be done with it. 

[lubo_blaha]

3 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

Totally agree that you'd need to see either an increase in ticket cost, increase in capacity or increase in hospitality, which I think all 3 would need to be true.

I'd love to be able to accept the argument of not spending £100m and investing it in facilities around the country, only the SFA hasn't done that and I'd be pretty confident in saying they won't.

You could argue its not the SFA's place to. Local clubs and local authorities should be the ones developing them. The SFA should (and do) provide the framework and coaching, but that wouldn't cost anywhere near the cost of redevelopment, even over 25 years.

They’re currently distributing a fund for clubs to develop new or renewed  facilities and from my experience they provide pretty good support for facility projects in general, despite not developing them on their own. Local authorities are generally strapped for cash and so have failed to provide a suitable and affordable facilities in much of the country, which is why we’re now seeing many grassroots clubs taking over these pitches.

Whether facility developments like this are within their remit or not, it could (and should) be questioned as to whether spending such a large figure in order to improve the sightlines for ~50% of attendees at Hampden (and bring in more money from these people) would be the most effective course of action.

[lubo_blaha]

19 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

should have went the the SRU proposal to share murrayfield. folk would get used to it eventually.

Sports stadiums must be difficult business models as they cost a lot of money and sit empty for the vast majority of the time and national venues even more so, just share the overheads and be done with it. 

The distance from the pitch behind the goals at Murrayfield is just as bad as Hampden.

I would disagree that Hampden is sitting empty too. It’ll be the most used stadium with a grass pitch in the country next season.

[tree house tam]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

should have went the the SRU proposal to share murrayfield. folk would get used to it eventually.

Sports stadiums must be difficult business models as they cost a lot of money and sit empty for the vast majority of the time and national venues even more so, just share the overheads and be done with it. 

Having watched my team play Hearts there, it's shite. Too far from the pitch, like Hampden.

[PrestersKTID]

8 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

From the sound of things there would’ve been money available on the back of a World Cup bid which won’t be available for a Euro bid which is why he’s said there aren’t plans in place currently. 

If you look at the business case for a redevelopment, I’m not convinced it stacks up. You’re not going to raise capacity significantly and it wouldn’t be a unique venue even just within Glasgow. The benefits would be a better view for 50% of the crowd and lower maintenance costs. To increase future revenues, you’re looking at a bigger hospitality offering (there’s already a good % of the ground dedicated to this) and higher ticket prices which I’m sure would go down well. You could argue that they could have more concerts and things like that as well but they’ve had 3/4 concerts every summer since they bought the ground and if anything the capacity for these would decrease if you brought the ends in. 

Growing the game obviously isn’t about making more people aware of football. It’s about giving more people a suitable place to play the game. It’s about getting more girls and other underrepresented groups involved more. It’s about arresting the slide of amateur and Sunday league teams folding. For the redevelopment cost, you could build a new 3G pitch in every local authority in the country. It’s valid to question what the best option would be out of the two.

On the stadium Current capacity is just under 52000.

Even if they increased to 65000 as per the “plan” that’s a pretty significant increase.

If we continued to sell out as we have been that’s 13000 extra tickets, £35 a pop. £455,000 a game. 5 games a season approx £2.28mil a year. Totally get that demand can drop.
No sure how much the sfa cut is for semi finals and finals but those revenues would increase also, especially if the city clubs are represented.
lower maintenance costs would contribute some.

Supporters club membership could increase to match the new capacity. 

the 2 million upkeep just now is only going to increase. Place is falling apart. toilet ceilings collapsed, leaks everywhere. Just tired looking south stand apart.

Totally get maxwells point about growing the game instead but can’t see them implementing it. 
also get the economic climate point, probably the worst time to be building or renovating a stadium.

Be interested to see if Wembley has paid for itself yet, it cost over a billion about 15 years ago.