Jump to content

Was that Hampden's last hurrah?


HibeeJibee

Recommended Posts

On 1/5/2018 at 13:19, BucksburnDandy said:

 

It is a bit unseemly, however the Scottish FA will argue that the end justifies the means. At the end of the day, if they gain control over Hampden and the ability to release more commercial rights, it may well be a key driver in developing the place properly. The Queen's Park President does not seem to interested in upgrading Hampden, which is not surprising given money will be tight for the Spiders. However, fans clearly do want a better Hampden.

 

As such, the Scottish FA would be justified in trying to push for ownership of the place. If QP do want a viable Hampden, they need the Scottish FA. Scotland is not the sort of place where too many outdoor concerts can be held, and athletics will not be viable in the long run.

 

Yes, it is harsh on QP, but for the long term good of Hampden, the ability to do commercial deals to raise finance to redevelop is a no brainer.

How much do you think the SFA would be willing to pay for Hampden to gain control?  What do you think QP value it at and why would they relinquish it for any less?

If I were at QP, I would listen to the noises coming from the SFA and engage an architect and surveyors to look at alternative uses and then use this valuation to tell the SFA - put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, strichener said:

How much do you think the SFA would be willing to pay for Hampden to gain control?  What do you think QP value it at and why would they relinquish it for any less?

If I were at QP, I would listen to the noises coming from the SFA and engage an architect and surveyors to look at alternative uses and then use this valuation to tell the SFA - put up or shut up.

 

That, I have no idea about, you would need to ask people within the Scottish FA and QP about how much they would each value Hampden at.

 

QP's problem is it needs the Scottish FA more than the Scottish FA needs QP at present. There's nowhere near enough demand for a 50,000 seater athletics ground, rugby is already covered by Murrayfield and Hampden costs too much for QP to run on their own.

 

The ideal scenario would be to see the Scottish FA able to take over Hampden and redevelop it. However, increasingly, I can see Hampden remaining untouched, as a dreadful ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all apologies if someone's already covered this earlier in the thread (I've not read all 18 pages), but there's a very simple compromise available here, although it needs the co-operation of various parties. One solution would be for the SFA to agree a much longer period of lease (e.g. 100 years) thereby making a statement about their long term intent. In turn that level of security would allow QP to cut their cloth and agree a lower more manageable annual rent for the SFA to pay.

That just leaves the problem of the playing surface, but if the SPFL are prepared to bend their rules and allow Queen's Park to have two registered grounds, and part of the deal with the SFA is to upgrade Lesser Hampden to League status (which wouldn't be a huge cost), then the lease agreement could state that Queen's must play home games at Lesser if any league games are within 14 days of an international or domestic showpiece game at Hampden.

This potentially suits all parties as follows:

  • the SFA can plough as much (or as little) money as they want into Hampden without it potentially going to waste at the end of a short term lease, and remain in control of the stadium with the ability to negotiate whatever concert or other commercial arrangements as they see fit (including partial naming rights but not beyond the 100 year period)
  • QP retain ownership of their asset, thereby protecting our long term interests
  • the pitch continues to be used and tended, but not to the extent that it will damage the surface immediately before an important game
  • not every QP fan wants us to remain at Hampden anyway, so it permits a few games at Lesser each season and perhaps over a period of time results in a change of opinion at the club if the majority find that the overall matchday experience is enhanced, resulting in a voluntary desire to play all games at Lesser, other than bigger cup-ties where we still have the Hampden option where a bigger capacity is needed.

I'm sure people will be able to pick holes in this, but thus far I've not seen a better workaround from anyone in the "retain-Hampden" camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BucksburnDandy said:

 

That, I have no idea about, you would need to ask people within the Scottish FA and QP about how much they would each value Hampden at.

 

QP's problem is it needs the Scottish FA more than the Scottish FA needs QP at present. There's nowhere near enough demand for a 50,000 seater athletics ground, rugby is already covered by Murrayfield and Hampden costs too much for QP to run on their own.

 

The ideal scenario would be to see the Scottish FA able to take over Hampden and redevelop it. However, increasingly, I can see Hampden remaining untouched, as a dreadful ground.

That may be the ideal scenario for the SFA, I am not sure that anyone from Queens Park would share this view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be the ideal scenario for the SFA, I am not sure that anyone from Queens Park would share this view.


Of course I'm speaking for the ideal scenario for the Scottish FA. The QP President somewhat gave some bargaining power away by publicly stating how much they currently rely on the Scottish FA. I cannot blame the governing body if they do pounce upon it.

Mind you, knowing the Scottish FA, they will be making an arse of this one as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BucksburnDandy said:

The QP President somewhat gave some bargaining power away by publicly stating how much they currently rely on the Scottish FA.

Since when was stating the bleedin' obvious equivalent to weakening one's bargaining position, or perhaps you think that Stewart Regan doesn't have sufficient intelligence to have worked out for himself that without the SFA's rental Hampden has no future? Actually, hold that thought...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when was stating the bleedin' obvious equivalent to weakening one's bargaining position, or perhaps you think that Stewart Regan doesn't have sufficient intelligence to have worked out for himself that without the SFA's rental Hampden has no future? Actually, hold that thought...........


Given their approach for Michael O'Neill so far, I'm willing to say the latter about Regan!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

So some clubs would play QP on Hampden and some would play them on a glorified back pitch? Hardly a level playing-field.

You forgot to chuck in some would play on grass at Hampden and a 3G pitch on the back field.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Spider said:

First of all apologies if someone's already covered this earlier in the thread (I've not read all 18 pages), but there's a very simple compromise available here, although it needs the co-operation of various parties. One solution would be for the SFA to agree a much longer period of lease (e.g. 100 years) thereby making a statement about their long term intent. In turn that level of security would allow QP to cut their cloth and agree a lower more manageable annual rent for the SFA to pay.

That just leaves the problem of the playing surface, but if the SPFL are prepared to bend their rules and allow Queen's Park to have two registered grounds, and part of the deal with the SFA is to upgrade Lesser Hampden to League status (which wouldn't be a huge cost), then the lease agreement could state that Queen's must play home games at Lesser if any league games are within 14 days of an international or domestic showpiece game at Hampden.

This potentially suits all parties as follows:

  • the SFA can plough as much (or as little) money as they want into Hampden without it potentially going to waste at the end of a short term lease, and remain in control of the stadium with the ability to negotiate whatever concert or other commercial arrangements as they see fit (including partial naming rights but not beyond the 100 year period)
  • QP retain ownership of their asset, thereby protecting our long term interests
  • the pitch continues to be used and tended, but not to the extent that it will damage the surface immediately before an important game
  • not every QP fan wants us to remain at Hampden anyway, so it permits a few games at Lesser each season and perhaps over a period of time results in a change of opinion at the club if the majority find that the overall matchday experience is enhanced, resulting in a voluntary desire to play all games at Lesser, other than bigger cup-ties where we still have the Hampden option where a bigger capacity is needed.

I'm sure people will be able to pick holes in this, but thus far I've not seen a better workaround from anyone in the "retain-Hampden" camp.

A sensible solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some clubs played Hearts at Murrayfield, some clubs played them at Tynecastle.  It's hardly a biggie.

Murrayfield was marked out to be the exact same size as Tynecastle.

Lesser Hampden is a smaller park (I'm pretty sure) than Hampden, plus a totally different surface. No chance would the league let them play on both as it wouldn't ensure a level playing field for the other teams in the league
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Goalie Hamish said:

Some clubs played Hearts at Murrayfield, some clubs played them at Tynecastle.  It's hardly a biggie.

... only as they said it'd be ready months ago, and could they just get the first few games away from home - only for it to be tosh, leaving them with no choice but to starting playing somewhere else. They didn't ask permission to use Murrayfield some (but not all) the time until things went "wrong".

ICT were made to play a full program with everyone before moving back from Pittodrie. Same with St Mirren before they left Love Street IIRC. Alloa were even made to play a full half-season before re-dimensioning the pitch.

At this sort of level I don't see how it could possibly be acceptable for QP and/or SFA to be going around selecting some games for grass in a huge stadium, yet others for 3G on a cramped training venue, permanently. Why not go the whole hog and let them play some games inside across the road at Toryglen, too.

EDIT: More conceivable would be upgrading Lesser to league standards and QP relocating permanently, but another thread has debated its limited footprint etc.

Edited by HibeeJibee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

... only as they said it'd be ready months ago, and could they just get the first few games away from home - only for it to be tosh, leaving them with no choice but to starting playing somewhere else. They didn't ask permission to use Murrayfield some (but not all) the time until things went "wrong".

ICT were made to play a full program with everyone before moving back from Pittodrie. Same with St Mirren before they left Love Street IIRC. Alloa were even made to play a full half-season before re-dimensioning the pitch.

At this sort of level I don't see how it could possibly be acceptable for QP and/or SFA to be going around selecting some games for grass in a huge stadium, yet others for 3G on a cramped training venue, permanently. Why not go the whole hog and let them play some games inside across the road at Toryglen, too.

EDIT: More conceivable would be upgrading Lesser to league standards and QP relocating permanently, but another thread has debated its limited footprint etc.

To be honest, at that level playing part time football in front of 400 fans then it's not really an issue in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, at that level playing part time football in front of 400 fans then it's not really an issue in my book.
What a patronising comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:
16 hours ago, Goalie Hamish said:
To be honest, at that level playing part time football in front of 400 fans then it's not really an issue in my book.

What a patronising comment.

Is it, or is it the truth?  if non-league football can move between venues to accomodate games where neccesary, playing to crowds of 100-200, whats the difference between that and QP and 400 fans?  They both are part-time football playing to low crowds.  We're not talking Champions League here.  Remember, it's a QP fan who proposed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it bizarre that Hampden is the issue that everyone in the national team seems to be talking about and not the fact that it will be over 20 years since we've been at a tournament.

Hampden could have been done better at the time but the idea that it is some especially awful stadium is just wrong. Plenty of other nations and footballing associations our size would kill for a stadium like that.

Our problem's the players, managers and mindset of the football game here - nothing to do with a stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Forest of Dean said:

I find it bizarre that Hampden is the issue that everyone in the national team seems to be talking about and not the fact that it will be over 20 years since we've been at a tournament.

Because that's currently what the talking point is?  But by all means, we should just be stating, for the millionth time, that we haven't qualified for a tournament.  After all, there's really important qualifiers coming up where we can change that, isn't there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, forameus said:

Because that's currently what the talking point is?  But by all means, we should just be stating, for the millionth time, that we haven't qualified for a tournament.  After all, there's really important qualifiers coming up where we can change that, isn't there?

It should be the talking about - not just stating that we've not qualified. We should be making serious changes but inertia is very common in Scottish football.

This Hampden stuff is just a media concocted distraction. A total non-issue.

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...