Abandon Hampden say SPFL Chairman

[Squirrelhumper]

On 3/26/2017 at 16:11, Flybhoy said:

Its an embarrasment of a national stadium.

They should raise it to the ground, awful venue to watch football.

It's better than the away end at Parkhead. Now that really is awful.

[Squirrelhumper]

On 3/26/2017 at 19:46, Worktheshaft said:

 

The aviva in Dublin although a new stadium is pish.

 

Agreed, it's shite and i've been in 3 of the 4 stands watching Scotland. 

[babu]

22 hours ago, killienick said:

Hampden isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but equally, it's not the cess pool it's being made out to be by some on here. I've been to every Scotland, (non friendly), home game for the last 16 years and you get to know where to sit and where not to sit, (actually - no-one sits but you get my point). When Hampden is rocking like against Italy, France and Spain, there is no atmosphere like it.

You'd love a large modern national  stadium,  with stands hugging the edge of the pitch   a lot more.

Then your epicurean taste in spectatorship would reach a new level.

 

 

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, jamamafegan said:

One things for sure, I'd be much happier seeing Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs profiting from Scotland games than the Old Firm.

I also like the idea of Scotland touring the country for smaller games. Rather than have a half empty Hampden for games against the likes of the Fareo Islands it could be held at a sold out Pittodrie, Easter Road or Tynecastle. It gives these cities a chance to feel more connected to international football and makes international football more accessible to fans.

The last time we played the Faroe Islands we did play them at Pittodrie

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, jamamafegan said:

One things for sure, I'd be much happier seeing Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs profiting from Scotland games than the Old Firm.

I also like the idea of Scotland touring the country for smaller games. Rather than have a half empty Hampden for games against the likes of the Fareo Islands it could be held at a sold out Pittodrie, Easter Road or Tynecastle. It gives these cities a chance to feel more connected to international football and makes international football more accessible to fans.

I completely agree that touring the country for friendlies is the right thing to do, but even for competitive games v smaller countries there isn't a ground big enough. Gibraltar in the last campaign had 34,255, our last competitive game v the Faroes was at Parkhead and had 50,059.

If you were to get rid of Hampden, then every single qualifier would have to be at Ibrox, Parkhead or Murrayfield. While there are many justified complaints about Hampden, some similar issues arise with the three of them before you consider the amount of money involved in rent.

Although you're obviously not as far away from the pitch, the view is dreadful from many parts of Ibrox as well. You have the underground nearby, but as with trains at Hampden the queues immediately after a game are massive. Parkhead's a fantastic stadium when it's full and unless you're stuck in those corners the view pisses all over Hampden or Ibrox, but the transport links aren't as good with the nearest train stations further away than Mount Florida to Hampden/Ibrox underground to Ibrox. At Murrayfield you've got much better transport links than the Glasgow stadiums, but you're about a lightyear further from the pitch than you are at Hampden (although it's a better view) and the lack of segregation both in the stands and at the turnstiles mean there's no chance we'd be able to play England there, or potentially anyone bringing a large travelling support. There's also the potential for clashes with rugby, where rugby will obviously always take priority with it being the SRU's stadium.

I'd much prefer Hampden if it had stands right on top of the pitch or at least squared behind the goal, and it'd be nice if Scotrail were to get more carriages out quickly after games to clear the queue at Mount Florida, but it's really not as bad as it's made out to be and all the alternatives have problems too.

[Ya Bezzer!]

Don't understand the animosity towards Hampden from some.  It's not a great world class modern stadium but neither is it a dump, it hosted the Champions League Final in recent memory.

As has been said we need a 'neutral' large capacity stadium and since we don't have a spare £200 million lying around it's as good as it gets.

Transport links are fine, better than either Ibrox or Celtic Park and let's get to the really important issue - they do great pokes of chips there.

[Ross.]

13 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

Don't understand the animosity towards Hampden from some.  It's not a great world class modern stadium but neither is it a dump, it hosted the Champions League Final in recent memory.

As has been said we need a 'neutral' large capacity stadium and since we don't have a spare £200 million lying around it's as good as it gets.

Transport links are fine, better than either Ibrox or Celtic Park and let's get to the really important issue - they do great pokes of chips there.

Ability to host a CL Final is generally more to do with how the VIP's will be treated than anything else. Pretty sure that Hampden is now unable to host it again due to the capacity being so small. Will probably get another Europa League final at some point mind you.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Murrayfield is the obvious choice

Because it's handy for my house.

It also holds an extra 15,000 people compared with Hampden and and extra 6,000 compared with celtic park and has all sorts of corporate facilities so even after giving the SRU their cut it could still generate more funds for scottish football.

But mainly because  it's handy for my house.

[AyrTroopMajor]

There's a fair bit of irony when people bemoan the distance from the pitch at Hampden and then offer Murrayfield as their ideal alternative.

[bennett]

4 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Make your mind up....no Hampden, but no OF grounds for semi finals.  

Sadly this is the type of contribution that sits alongside "Just build another ground".

This has been done to death.  Scottish football doesn't have the money to build another ground, even if we wanted to.  The result will be playing big games at Parkhead.  Why would any game go to Ibrox, with a much smaller capacity than Parkhead, unless it involved Celtic?  If people want to fill Celtic's coffers and complete the club's master plan to shaft the Scottish game even more, fire ahead.  

We'll sell Hampden and build a cracking wee ground and the best training facility in the country.  We'd also see what the eternal moaners say about transport links to either Ibrox or Parkhead, which are pish compared to Hampden.

Topping - a nobody.

 

 

Save our Hampden.

[thekorean]

1 hour ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

There's a fair bit of irony when people bemoan the distance from the pitch at Hampden and then offer Murrayfield as their ideal alternative.

Being rectangular gives false impression that seats are closer to the pitch, I guess.

[K77]

23 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Practicality + finance, basically.

Over 2 phases.

The 2nd photo is a good indication of just how much Hampden has been reduced over the years. As I understand it the old seated top tier of the north stand required to be upgraded to meet the current building regulations but it would have cost more to upgrade the existing stand than to demolish it and build a new one. So they simply demolished it.

Not too sure why the old terrace underneath was abandoned. I remember the first time I stood there in the 80's as a kid and being baffled by the vast area behind the access/exit portals. It just seemed such a waste.

Also I have never heard a reason for removing the top section of the east terrace at the same time.

As mentioned the current Hampden is pretty much a reclad of the existing earth banks from the original construction ~100 years ago, plus new roof. Earth banks were pretty much the stadium state of the art back then but redundant for the most part today.

While it is feasible to square off the ends this would require a complete demolition of the east and west stands. Demolition alone would be expensive as you would have to deconstruct the existing roof in a manner that does not affect the existing north and south stands. Following that you need to remove the earth banks and that is where a lot of money may be required that may not be obvious to all. Removal of material to landfill is subject to a tax, and the threshold on what is classed as hazardous material is pretty low these days. Even 'non-hazardous waste' can still generate eye watering costs dependent on volumes.

Given the date of construction of the earth banks plus the abundance of heavy industry in the area at the time (where the surplus material may have came from) there is potential that the earth banks contain some particularly nasty contaminants. Together with the volumes involved it could be several million just the clear the site even before the new stands build cost. At a rough guess, I doubt there would be much change out of £50million to build two square stands to maintain a similar overall capacity.

Slight additional problem that the existing north and south stands are tapered to tie into the curve of the east and west bowls. In order to maximise capacity and sight lines would probably require a remodification of the end blocks in line with each goal line. That alone would be several million.

I loved the old Hampden. When standing on a packed terrace the atmosphere was something else but it is no longer fit for purpose and is not cost effective to upgrade.

Murrayfield, Parkhead, Ibrox, Easter Road, Tynecastle, new Aberdeen stadium, Tannadice, Rugby Park would all be acceptable to host Scotland internationals, cup semis/finals etc depending on demand.

[7-2]

Was it ever established why the 'Rangers' end was covered and the 'Celtic' end remained open?

[HibeeJibee]

Hidden Hand of Protestant Establishment Masonic Conspiracy, I'd imagine.

EDIT: To be clear - East end had 'gallery' terracing.






Seems the photo I posted of Hampden after Phase 1 has gone defunct. Here it is again:

[lubo_blaha]

5 hours ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

There's a fair bit of irony when people bemoan the distance from the pitch at Hampden and then offer Murrayfield as their ideal alternative.

Murrayfield is much steeper though. You get a much better view from the majority seats at Murrayfield than you do at Hampden. 

Also, the fact that 50% of the seats at Hampden are behind the bylines doesn't help matters. 

[The_Kincardine]

21 minutes ago, 7-2 said:

Was it ever established why the 'Rangers' end was covered and the 'Celtic' end remained open?

They need(ed) a wash?  Worst cup final I've ever been to was the 2nd replay vs Hibs in 1979.   Maybe 20,000 in the pishing rain and I still got soaked.

Hampden was an absolute fucking coup even compared to the pre-Waddell Ibrox and was only acceptable when packed to capacity on cup finals or for home internationals.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

On 26/03/2017 at 17:37, itzdrk said:

Getting rid of a mostly fine national stadium to give money to Celtic, Rugby & Rangers can get so far in the sea. 

This is what I think. Brendan Rodgers even said that Hampden is pretty good and he couldn't understand why he was warned otherwise.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

On 27/03/2017 at 10:41, thisGRAEME said:

 

Pretty much my view.

A classic thread, this. It features all the hallmarks;

A) Claims that a giant super stadium should be built in Stirling, a place with next to no footballing heritage or interest. Insistence that there can be a motorway exit built and a rail link to...somewhere. Edinburgh's trams went for double the budget, half the proposed distance and delayed. It's taking Glasgow over 20 years to build a rail link to the airport. It's taken Aberdeen since Moses was in short trousers to build a ring road. They're still claiming the Subway in Glasgow will be extended to the East End. They still haven't developed the A9 to a suitable standard.

But aye, we'll just chuck up a stadium with ???? money and get a rail link north and south through Scotrail who can't get enough carriages on rush hours between Glasgow and Edinburgh will run a suitable service North to Aberdeen, south-east to Edinburgh and south-west to Glasgow. And as there's no pubs we'll just put up a big marquee for folk to stand in while wearing their fleece.

B) People from Aberdeen howling about Glasgow, and Hampden, being too far away. Certainly, we should pander to those living in Aberdeen, and Aberdeenshire ( <500,000 people) over those who live in Glasgow (500,000+, not including Lanarkshire and such which takes it well over a million, but whatever).

C) Insistence that we should just use Murrayfield. Aye, we should 100% be giving money to not football in Scotland. What the game needs is more money going outside Scottish football. Especially to that collection of badger baiting sheep dip drinking anti-EU voting Tories. 

D) Just use Parkhead or Ibrox. They get enough of the money in our game, hard pass. Stop giving them 'their' dressing room when they play at Hampden, while we're at it.

E) Hampden isn't well connected; There's three train lines and about four million busses that get you within five, ten, or twenty minutes of Hampden, connected to a rail network which crucially, already exists. If you can't work 1) a map or 2) a bus timetable, please step back from this argument.

Nah, Hampden isn't perfect. There won't be another Commonwealth games for fifty years in Glasgow, so looking, however fleetingly, at squaring off the ends would make a colossal difference. But claiming that it's a white elephant in the same argument that one should be built in Stirling, or that we should give money to fucking rugby is bizarre.

Graeme wins.

[TheScarf]

I've been in Hampden in 3 of its stages of life.  

The post 1993 all seater version with the old main stand, which was steep as f**k near the top (QP v ICT in 94/95)

The post 1993 all seater version with no main stand and a big gaping hole in between the old getting demolished and new one getting built (QP v ICT in 96/97).

And obviously it's current format.

 

 

[thisGRAEME]

Weirdly, came across this:

Whiiiiiich I'd imagine, if it was brought in a bit at the ends, people would be happier with?