Jump to content

Hampden Park has it had its Day ?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, banana said:

It's been mentioned a few times that the pitch can be moved 15-20 meters towards the South Stand, giving plenty of breathing space for an expanded North Stand also built closer to the pitch than currently.

Correct, there is plenty of scope to remodel the outdated three sides of the ground into something modern whilst retaining or increasing current capacity.

It's the age old debate though, where does the money come from and is it value for money given two other large stadia exist not far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hampden needs to be kept, or a version of Hampden at least.  If anything it acts against Scotland's constant obsession with agendas and conspiracies.  The smaller clubs will be unhappy if all Scotland games are played at Ibrox or Parkhead for example

Also where would an Old Firm Cup final be played? Certainly cant be Parkhead or Ibrox. Keep the South Stand, put another tier on the North and bull dose behind the goals.

SNP government can pay for it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, edinabear said:

SNP government can pay for it!!

Scottish Govt you mean,  why would they pay for it? football as a sport is not short of a bob or two, I'd rather see the cash spent where it is needed in society not on some new fitba stands at a privately owned stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people would want us to play football at Murrayfield. It's like many of the original MLS team stadiums, where it's painfully obvious that the stadium is made for something else. 

There isn't really an ideal option. Ibrox has suffered from years of neglect and Parkhead needs upgrading as well. Both are terribly overrated. I'd rather stay at Hampden. I don't see a problem with the look of the stadium by redeveloping the East and West stands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye in an ideal world with plenty of cash we could re do it but thats no goin to happen , its just becuase the old firm will profit from it and it sticks in folks throats but i cant see a way round it , even the away corner at ibrox has a better view than most of hampden , parkheads away section is pish but for scotland games that wouldnt concern us as wel no be in it . Behind the goals at parkhead is decent viewing , they can also both be walked to and from the city centre easier than hampden .
Are we cutting our nose of to spite our face ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

I can't believe people would want us to play football at Murrayfield. It's like many of the original MLS team stadiums, where it's painfully obvious that the stadium is made for something else. 

There isn't really an ideal option. Ibrox has suffered from years of neglect and Parkhead needs upgrading as well. Both are terribly overrated. I'd rather stay at Hampden. I don't see a problem with the look of the stadium by redeveloping the East and West stands. 

Redeveloping the East and West stands would be a huge problem. They wouldn't get planning permission for building upwards due to it being a residential area so you wouldn't manage to get around 13k in both stands without having seats miles away from the pitch like they are at the moment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Aye in an ideal world with plenty of cash we could re do it but thats no goin to happen , its just becuase the old firm will profit from it and it sticks in folks throats but i cant see a way round it , even the away corner at ibrox has a better view than most of hampden , parkheads away section is pish but for scotland games that wouldnt concern us as wel no be in it . Behind the goals at parkhead is decent viewing , they can also both be walked to and from the city centre easier than hampden .
Are we cutting our nose of to spite our face ?

I would say so, even if the SFA said games were being played at Ibrox with the premise it is maintained to a standard better than it is now it wouldnt bother me. It is a ground far better for atmosphere, more pubs and far easier to get in and out of which are my main concerns, couldnt give a hoot about hospitality etc. They could have got it on the cheap when Rangers died tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it makes little difference to me as a fan about who owns the ground the game is being played at, i'm certainly not in favour of giving the old firm a bigger finaincial advantage but i also really dont like hampden , who knows maybe itl be one of those things you miss once its gone!  i wasnt old enough to be at ibrox when we beat celtic in 97 ( i was 8 but my dad isnt into football and glasgows too far!) but i doubt those who were there would have gret becuase it wasnt at hampden, i was at the 2009 final against rangers and i doubt it would have made any difference if it had been played at parkhead, rangers would still have had most of the tickets and we would have been shoved behind the goals as is the case most of the time,    as for the 2015 final well only a cut price ticket deal got the capacity above half full so i guess its less important there, even still had that been at ibrox then all 37000 fans and day trippers could have been sat comfortably without using restricted view areas.

long way of saying just use the grounds that are fit for watching fitbaw in, hampden isnt. the money is a problem i know but just make the fan experience a wee bit less shite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2017 at 08:39, SpoonTon said:

I can't believe people would want us to play football at Murrayfield. It's like many of the original MLS team stadiums, where it's painfully obvious that the stadium is made for something else. 

There isn't really an ideal option. Ibrox has suffered from years of neglect and Parkhead needs upgrading as well. Both are terribly overrated. I'd rather stay at Hampden. I don't see a problem with the look of the stadium by redeveloping the East and West stands. 

As opposed to Hampden, which was clearly designed for fitbaw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, thekorean said:

As opposed to Hampden, which was clearly designed for fitbaw?

Well, yes. Hampden is an outdated throwback in terms of design, but it is actually a football stadium. It is a football stadium designed for football - just not the best design behind the goals. 

If people are going to complain about the distance between the stands and the goals at Hampden, then Murrayfield just isn't a credible alternative. 

Edited by SpoonTon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

Well, yes. Hampden is an outdated throwback in terms of design, but it is actually a football stadium. It is a football stadium designed for football - just not the best design behind the goals. 

If people are going to complain about the distance between the stands and the goals at Hampden, then Murrayfield just isn't a credible alternative. 

Eh, it’s better shaped for fitbaw. Neither stadiums are perfect but I think Murrayfield is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thekorean said:

Eh, it’s better shaped for fitbaw. Neither stadiums are perfect but I think Murrayfield is better.

Murrayfield has a running track along one side and about 30 yards of grass behind each goal. It's pointless being a good shape for football if the area is that big. And that's the point I'm making here, Murrayfield is not designed for football, and that is painfully obvious when football is played there. 

Giving up having a national football stadium to play games in a rugby stadium is not a good idea. Upgrading Hampden would be the best option, if possible. Playing in a rugby stadium which is not suitable for our needs is not a credible long term plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

Murrayfield has a running track along one side and about 30 yards of grass behind each goal. It's pointless being a good shape for football if the area is that big. And that's the point I'm making here, Murrayfield is not designed for football, and that is painfully obvious when football is played there. 

Giving up having a national football stadium to play games in a rugby stadium is not a good idea. Upgrading Hampden would be the best option, if possible. Playing in a rugby stadium which is not suitable for our needs is not a credible long term plan. 

Upgrading Hampden would be the best option, but to say Murrayfield isn't suitable for our needs is absurd.  The football pitch currently laid out at Murrayfield for Hearts matches the dimensions of Tynecastle, that can be expanded to a much larger pitch size to match Hampden.  Secondly, you have all round upper tiers which afford a better view than 3/4 of Hampden. You can also accommodate 17k more fans.

It might not be a football stadium, it might not be 100% perfect, but as a stadium it's miles ahead of Hampden and generates a cracking atmosphere for football when even half full.  The SFA should at least be taking the option seriously and perhaps even playing a friendly there to get a feel for it.

 

Edited by Burnie_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

Upgrading Hampden would be the best option, but to say Murrayfield isn't suitable for our needs is absurd.  The football pitch currently laid out at Murrayfield for Hearts matches the dimensions of Tynecastle, that can be expanded to a much larger pitch size to match Hampden.  Secondly, you have all round upper tiers which afford a better view than 3/4 of Hampden. You can also accommodate 17k more fans.

It might not be a football stadium, it might not be 100% perfect, but as a stadium it's miles ahead of Hampden and generates a cracking atmosphere for football when even half full.  The SFA should at least be taking the option seriously and perhaps even playing a friendly there to get a feel for it.

 

That would be about 2 metres difference at each end. It looked ridiculous when Celtic played there as well. 

The capacity doesn't particularly suit us either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

That would be about 2 metres difference at each end. It looked ridiculous when Celtic played there as well. 

The capacity doesn't particularly suit us either. 

Not sure I'm too fussed whether it "looks" ridiculous or not, it's a better viewing experience for more fans than is currently "enjoyed" at Hampden.  The set-up of the stadium is also better than Hampden for smaller crowds, you can open/close tiers as necessary.

It would do no harm to actually try it out in March or end of season when they are planning some friendlies.  Hampden wont have money spent on it anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero understanding about rugby.  Don’t they play rugby in football stadiums with smaller pitch?
Why does Murrayfield have such a big pitch?

Most rugby and football pitches are much of a muchness but Murrayfield is big even for rugby - the bits behind the goals are way bigger than at any other major rugby venue (except for when Croke Park hosted the Irish team when Landsdowne Road was being renovated into the Aviva). It also has a bizarre single 100m running track on the main stand side. It's just a large venue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murrayfield has a fair gap from stands to pitch as bad as Hampden, so half the point in moving is lost.
How the f**k did Scottish rugby afford to build it?

They couldn't. Murray field caused crippling debt which still hasnt been paid off. Thats why we only have two full time pro sides n ireland & wales each have four.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...