Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[1320Lichtie]

The debate around Hampden is a very helpful distraction for the SFA from the fact that the national team has under performed for almost 20 years and they are largely to blame. I'm surprised the SFSA have bought into this. A stadium does not generate atmosphere by its design (viz. the Emirates, Etihad, new Wembley) rather through attendance and most importantly performance on the pitch. This sudden love in for Murrayfield is bizarre. It's a rugby stadium completely devoid of atmosphere even when Scotland are winning. 
The solution is surely to play the big games at Hampden and rotate around the country for friendlies and smaller qualifiers. France, Italy and England at Hampden are examples of the best atmosphere I've experienced at a football stadium ever. 
If it's architecturally possible to remove the "running track" (when is it ever used?) then let's do so but I doubt this would massively improve a home game against Lithuania or Gibraltar.
 
 

It’s not a distraction the topic is spoken about for days on end after every bad result. Everyone is sick fed up of hearing about it. The SFA and Regan/Doncaster bashing happens daily regardless of this debate.

[SpoonTon]

8 minutes ago, LondonSons said:

The debate around Hampden is a very helpful distraction for the SFA from the fact that the national team has under performed for almost 20 years and they are largely to blame. I'm surprised the SFSA have bought into this. A stadium does not generate atmosphere by its design (viz. the Emirates, Etihad, new Wembley) rather through attendance and most importantly performance on the pitch. This sudden love in for Murrayfield is bizarre. It's a rugby stadium completely devoid of atmosphere even when Scotland are winning. 

The solution is surely to play the big games at Hampden and rotate around the country for friendlies and smaller qualifiers. France, Italy and England at Hampden are examples of the best atmosphere I've experienced at a football stadium ever. 

If it's architecturally possible to remove the "running track" (when is it ever used?) then let's do so but I doubt this would massively improve a home game against Lithuania or Gibraltar.

 

 

There is no running track. So, never. I think it would improve things to remove it. It would certainly remove the impression of Hampden that some fans have, and that would be helpful. There would need to be a proper financial reason for it to make it viable though. 

I do agree that the atmosphere at Hampden can be great. And pretty much the same as everywhere I've been - the fuller the better. 

There's a problem with using smaller venues. Nothing would have been big enough to stage any qualifier this century. And even if you did assume matches against smaller nations to be smaller matches, it might not be the case given the potential importance of that match. 

[LondonSons]

3 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

It’s not a distraction the topic is spoken about for days on end after every bad result. Everyone is sick fed up of hearing about it. The SFA and Regan/Doncaster bashing happens daily regardless of this debate.

 

The debate should constantly be focussed on how do we get a better quality of football both in our league structure and national team. Where we play that football doesn't really matter as long as spectators are able to attend and are safe. Hampden fulfills both of those requirements and also generates a good atmosphere when the team is performing well.

[LondonSons]

5 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

There is no running track. So, never. I think it would improve things to remove it. It would certainly remove the impression of Hampden that some fans have, and that would be helpful. There would need to be a proper financial reason for it to make it viable though. 

I do agree that the atmosphere at Hampden can be great. And pretty much the same as everywhere I've been - the fuller the better. 

There's a problem with using smaller venues. Nothing would have been big enough to stage any qualifier this century. And even if you did assume matches against smaller nations to be smaller matches, it might not be the case given the potential importance of that match. 

Good point re. importance of qualifiers so perhaps just friendlies away from Hampden? Even at smaller grounds these fail to sell out.

[1320Lichtie]

The debate should constantly be focussed on how do we get a better quality of football both in our league structure and national team. Where we play that football doesn't really matter as long as spectators are able to attend and are safe. Hampden fulfills both of those requirements and also generates a good atmosphere when the team is performing well.

It is.

And of course it matters where we play.

[Goalie Hamish]

35 minutes ago, LondonSons said:

The debate around Hampden is a very helpful distraction for the SFA from the fact that the national team has under performed for almost 20 years and they are largely to blame. I'm surprised the SFSA have bought into this. A stadium does not generate atmosphere by its design (viz. the Emirates, Etihad, new Wembley) rather through attendance and most importantly performance on the pitch. This sudden love in for Murrayfield is bizarre. It's a rugby stadium completely devoid of atmosphere even when Scotland are winning. 

The solution is surely to play the big games at Hampden and rotate around the country for friendlies and smaller qualifiers. France, Italy and England at Hampden are examples of the best atmosphere I've experienced at a football stadium ever. 

If it's architecturally possible to remove the "running track" (when is it ever used?) then let's do so but I doubt this would massively improve a home game against Lithuania or Gibraltar.

 

 

This myth about moving games round the country needs burying.  Yes, for low key friendlies (of which there will be very few once the Nations League starts), but otherwise Scotland qualifiers always draw crowds well in excess of the capacities of club grounds outwith Ibrox and Parkhead.

[kenny131]

Wales built a state of the art stadium with retractable roof for around the 180million mark and it's rented out for boxing concerts and has paid for itself. The bumbling buffoons at the SFA should be going down this road but they would rather keep there snotty beaks in troff

[LondonSons]

49 minutes ago, kenny131 said:

Wales built a state of the art stadium with retractable roof for around the 180million mark and it's rented out for boxing concerts and has paid for itself. The bumbling buffoons at the SFA should be going down this road but they would rather keep there snotty beaks in troff

And yet UEFA chose Hampden ahead of the Principality stadium for Euro 2020. Also there have been concerts at Hampden?

[HibeeJibee]

If there are 10s of millions of £ - probably many, many 10s of millions - available to rebuild the end stands closer to the pitch simply to "improve atmosphere", there are more worthy causes to spend that cash on. It would make a huge difference to youth development; transform schools football; or build several indoor training pitches.

In practice such money probably isn't available.

[1320Lichtie]

If there are 10s of millions of £ - probably many, many 10s of millions - available to rebuild the end stands closer to the pitch simply to "improve atmosphere", there are more worthy causes to spend that cash on. It would make a huge difference to youth development; transform schools football; or build several indoor training pitches.

In practice such money probably isn't available.

Just because there might be a way of finding funding for works to a stadium doesn’t necessarily mean that same funding would be available for other projects?

[velo army]

Selling the naming rights of Hampden to a huge company would be a no-brainer. The big German clubs have done this for the last 20 years and it hasn't diluted the passion or atmosphere. Get the private sector to pay for the rebuild of the stadium. Irn Bru would surely jump at it.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, 1320Lichtie said:

Just because there might be a way of finding funding for works to a stadium doesn’t necessarily mean that same funding would be available for other projects?

 

I'm assuming we're talking cash generated from within football: whether that be profits from ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights, or new / 'one-off' streams such as selling naming rights or Euro 2020 payments. May not reach the scale needed and could be used for the other purposes entirely at SFA's discretion.

I'd find it unlikely government or the lottery could stump up such a scale of money and would do so to reconstruct 20k seats in a stadium rebuilt 20yrs ago to give a bit better a view but not alternative projects: particularly infrastructure like indoor pitches or training centres, delivering more regular use and wider "community benefits"?

[The Moonster]

35 minutes ago, velo army said:

Selling the naming rights of Hampden to a huge company would be a no-brainer. The big German clubs have done this for the last 20 years and it hasn't diluted the passion or atmosphere. Get the private sector to pay for the rebuild of the stadium. Irn Bru would surely jump at it.

Too many "you sold your soul!!!!111!" types who follow Scottish football for that to go through. Your Hamish Husband types (we have thousands of them) would burst if we called it the Irn Bru Stadium.

[1320Lichtie]

I'm assuming we're talking cash generated from within football: whether that be profits from ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights, or new / 'one-off' streams such as selling naming rights or Euro 2020 payments. May not reach the scale needed and could be used for the other purposes entirely at SFA's discretion.

I'd find it unlikely government or the lottery could stump up such a scale of money and would do so to reconstruct 20k seats in a stadium rebuilt 20yrs ago to give a bit better a view but not alternative projects: particularly infrastructure like indoor pitches or training centres, delivering more regular use and wider "community benefits"?

It’s not going to be generated from within football anyway.

And I’m not sure how all these other stadiums have been funded in the other ‘home nations’, asked earlier and nobody has answered.

[1320Lichtie]

Selling the naming rights of Hampden to a huge company would be a no-brainer. The big German clubs have done this for the last 20 years and it hasn't diluted the passion or atmosphere. Get the private sector to pay for the rebuild of the stadium. Irn Bru would surely jump at it.

 

Dodgy PFI deal, £100 monthly instalments until 3030, sorted

[Goalie Hamish]

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

I'm assuming we're talking cash generated from within football: whether that be profits from ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights, or new / 'one-off' streams such as selling naming rights or Euro 2020 payments. May not reach the scale needed and could be used for the other purposes entirely at SFA's discretion.

I'd find it unlikely government or the lottery could stump up such a scale of money and would do so to reconstruct 20k seats in a stadium rebuilt 20yrs ago to give a bit better a view but not alternative projects: particularly infrastructure like indoor pitches or training centres, delivering more regular use and wider "community benefits"?

Have a Google, Stuttgart remodelled both ends at a cost of around €60m, the roof was left in place whilst the curved ends below were demolished and rebuilt square.  Not exactly Hampden but a good example of what can be done, and for £60m that would be decent value to bring Hampden upto 21st century standards.  Oriam cost £33m.

[HibeeJibee]

So that's £500 from every football fan (on an average weekend)... or £20 from every adult of working age in the country... or 2yrs of SFA turnover... or 1yr of the entire lottery sports budget...

... to move the seats nearer the pitch?

... or to pay thousands of coaches; fund hundreds of youth clubs; build dozens of 3G pitches; or construct several indoor training centres?

That's surely questionable priorities.

[California_Caley]

6 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

So that's £500 from every football fan (on an average weekend)... or £20 from every adult of working age in the country... or 2yrs of SFA turnover... or 1yr of the entire lottery sports budget...

... to move the seats nearer the pitch?

... or to pay thousands of coaches; fund hundreds of youth clubs; build dozens of 3G pitches; or construct several indoor training centres?

That's surely questionable priorities.

Solid point. I'd really like to see us follow Iceland's model, ideally with facilities distributed around the country and not just in the central belt.

[1320Lichtie]

So that's £500 from every football fan (on an average weekend)... or £20 from every adult of working age in the country... or 2yrs of SFA turnover... or 1yr of the entire lottery sports budget...

... to move the seats nearer the pitch?

... or to pay thousands of coaches; fund hundreds of youth clubs; build dozens of 3G pitches; or construct several indoor training centres?

That's surely questionable priorities.

This is doing my nut in.

Why is it going to be a choice between the two???

[Honest_Man#1]

39 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

This is doing my nut in.

Why is it going to be a choice between the two???
 

 

Because there's not an endless pot of money. How are we supposed to pay for both simultaneously?