senorsoupe Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Tell us how you really think Tom 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Michael Stewart was suggesting redeveloping Hampden but decreasing capacity to around 30-35k to plug that gap we have between the likes of Pittodrie, Tynecastle and Easter Road up to the 4 over 50K stadiums. We would then use Murrayfield and Hampden for the major club and international games and the other stadiums could pick up the games they currently do. I didn't think it was a completely crazy idea but doubt it would be financially viable to do up Hampden in such a way. At least the joint bid from the "worlds fiercest rivals" has been binned. Edited January 30, 2018 by NorthernLights 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedrodelawasp Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: Hampden is a shite stadium which should be good. Yep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Tell us how you really think Tom He’s spot on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, NorthernLights said: Michael Stewart was suggesting redeveloping Hampden but decreasing capacity to around 30-35k to plug that gap we have between the likes of Pittodrie, Tynecastle and Easter Road up to the 4 over 50K stadiums. We would then use Murrayfield and Hampden for the major club and international games and the other stadiums could pick up the games they currently do. I didn't think it was a completely crazy idea but doubt it would be financially viable to do up Hampden in such a way. At least the joint bid from the "worlds fiercest rivals" has been binned. Just use the North and South Stands, that's nearly 30,000 seats there. The overhanging roof on the East and West Stands would be perfect to hang big curtains off to create more intimacy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 And according to Barry Wilson, Murrayfield is MUCH closer to Inverness than Hampden is (3 hrs as opposed to 3hrs 13 according to google maps there). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos_75 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, NorthernLights said: Michael Stewart was suggesting redeveloping Hampden but decreasing capacity to around 30-35k to plug that gap we have between the likes of Pittodrie, Tynecastle and Easter Road up to the 4 over 50K stadiums. We would then use Murrayfield and Hampden for the major club and international games and the other stadiums could pick up the games they currently do. I didn't think it was a completely crazy idea but doubt it would be financially viable to do up Hampden in such a way. If they used all the lower tier at Murrayfield that would probably tick the 30-35,000 box. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Murrayfield looks like a great stadium, but when you actually attend a football match there you realise it's huge limitations as well. I sat behind the goal for Hearts v Saints earlier this season and it was a major struggle to make out what was happening at the far end. You are a long way back from the pitch. There are also no fixed catering outlets whatsoever, just food vans parked in the empty land between the stands and the turnstiles. I think Michael Stewart is onto something, redevelop the ends at Hampden to be close and square to the pitch and join the north and south stands. A final capacity of 35-40,000 is perfect for most non old firm semi-Finals and Finals. Play those and all Edinburgh clashes at Murrayfield. I know cost is an implication, but do one Stand at a time over a few years. Doesn't need much corporate, just the same basic facilities as at Hampden now. Worst case scenario, if it's too expensive, just do one end and give it to the smaller team in Cup games, as the bigger side gets the North Stand anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
an86 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Obviously, I have a vested interest in this debate. However, on the Murrayfield front, the main worry would be that it’d encourage rugby types to come to the football. Anything that encourages more Tories at football matches should be actively discouraged. We must be careful what we wish for. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Pleasantly surprised by today's developments. Hampden obviously isn't great, but its history means it shouldn't be discarded lightly. I'm relaxed enough about Murrayfield, but again it has flaws as a football stadium. I'm delighted however that the OF grounds are no longer in the picture. I didn't want them getting the financial rewards of staging Scotland games and I sure as Hell didn't want them getting the competitive advantage of staging 'neutral' semis and finals. Edited January 30, 2018 by Monkey Tennis 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resk Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Have Rangers and Celtic been allocated their "ends" at Murrayfield yet? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEd Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Paul Goodwin and Michael Stewart are trying to shift the debate to transport links now, suggesting that Murrayfield has better transport links. In my very humble opinion they are both talking out of their backsides. Although Haymarket is served by trains from various locations in Scotland, it's not exactly next door to the stadium. Hampden has a number of stations nearby, and is more easily approached by foot or car/bus with more than one main road in the area. As for the atmosphere debate, it isn't the stadium that is problem. It's the football on offer. There have been games with amazing atmospheres at Hampden, but I doubt Murrayfield would conjure much of atmosphere for Gibraltar or Malta. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 I'd be surprised if they left Hampden now? Given the amount of interest and influence Glasgow and the West Coast has it would be a huge move to swap to Edinburgh not to mention do what has always been anathema to SFA throughout history - sharing cash with another sport. You've also got the logistical nightmare of Celtic v Rangers in a cup final or SF thus having to share the trains, trams and M8 services on the way there (and back). It's also ~18k seats larger so that all the arguments about being too large and no atmosphere would continue; plus the 2 options for stadiums for friendlies etc. are in Edinburgh. My suspicion was some fudge of "matches being shared amongst these 3 stadiums and others" that would've ended up OF-centric so happy that's not happening. Given we were told it would need "millions and millions" to consider staying at Hampden, though, it'll be interesting to see how they square that claim if Murrayfield does indeed get the chop. Suspect the Queen's Park chairman is considerably more chilled and chirpy than he may have been a few months ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Obviously, I have a vested interest in this debate. However, on the Murrayfield front, the main worry would be that it’d encourage rugby types to come to the football. Anything that encourages more Tories at football matches should be actively discouraged. We must be careful what we wish for. I kinda agree, I really don’t think it should go to a no voting city, if Edinburgh is to host international football it should only be considered for a team GB (which the rugby types would get right behind). -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Butler Says Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Excellent news today - so it’s now a straight fight between our National Stadium in Scotland’s greatest city, and some rugby ground in the permanent traffic jam of Edinburgh. Common sense will prevail and there will only be one winner. I trust the SFA are using the threat, however ludicrous, of relocating to a distant Tory land of which we know little and care less, as a weapon in attaining a better business and ownership model for Hampden. Whilst we should be proud of the old stadium , further redevelopment in the medium term clearly is needed to bring it up to the standards expected for one of the world’s most iconic stadiums. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Don't kid yourselves that the Celtic Park and Ibrox options have been rejected. The SFA will make a different decision following the summer. By that time they are hoping the Colts will be in the league system, and they can revisit the plans for the national team and cup finals. And can you think of a Final being played in Edinburgh between the two cheeks? Bedlam. A total non starter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Paul Goodwin and Michael Stewart are trying to shift the debate to transport links now, suggesting that Murrayfield has better transport links. In my very humble opinion they are both talking out of their backsides. Although Haymarket is served by trains from various locations in Scotland, it's not exactly next door to the stadium. Hampden has a number of stations nearby, and is more easily approached by foot or car/bus with more than one main road in the area. Think you’re the one talking out your backside, mate. Anybody coming from the north or east to a Scotland international by train has to traipse through Glasgow City Centre and then wait ages at Central for a connection. It doesn’t compare. Trains from Glasgow, Fife, Perth, Aberdeen etc all arrive at Haymarket which is only a direct 10min walk from the ground or a very quick tram ride. As for car, multiple park and ride schemes are available, Newcraighall in the East and the one by the airport in the West, which connects directs with the train which whisks you strait to the ground. You also have Edinburgh Gateway now meaning you can hop off there and onto the tram there too. As for bus, multiple coaches from all over Scotland seem to make it to Murrayfield no bother although I have no experience of traveling to an international by bus. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Enigma said: Think you’re the one talking out your backside, mate. Anybody coming from the north or east to a Scotland international by train has to traipse through Glasgow City Centre and then wait ages at Central for a connection. It doesn’t compare. Trains from Glasgow, Fife, Perth, Aberdeen etc all arrive at Haymarket which is only a direct 10min walk from the ground or a very quick tram ride. As for car, multiple park and ride schemes are available, Newcraighall in the East and the one by the airport in the West, which connects directs with the train which whisks you strait to the ground. You also have Edinburgh Gateway now meaning you can hop off there and onto the tram there too. As for bus, multiple coaches from all over Scotland seem to make it to Murrayfield no bother although I have no experience of traveling to an international by bus. It's far, far easier to get to - and more importantly back from - Murrayfield than it is from Hampden. Mt Florida station is not fit for purpose. If it's a question of Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is, I'd vote for Murrayfield every time. Hampden properly developed would be my first pick, but that's not going to happen. I've seen a Facebook poll and Div's Twitter poll, and they are both running at about 2-1 in favour of Murrayfield. Edited January 31, 2018 by Savage Henry 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northsea80 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 It's far, far easier to get to - and more importantly back from - Murrayfield than it is from Hampden. Mt Florida station is not fit for purpose. If it's a question of Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is, I'd vote for Murrayfield every time. Hampden properly developed would be my first pick, but that's not going to happen. I've seen a Facebook poll and Div's Twitter poll, and they are both running at about 2-1 in favour of Murrayfield. Mount Florida station is fit for purpose. It’s there to serve local commuters. It just happens to be the closest station to Hampden and I’ve never understood why people would queue there for ages after a game at Hampden rather that walk the length of Cathcart rd to town. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worktheshaft Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Honestly think people's opinion of Murrayfield would change if they actually saw a football match there. Yes Hampden is shite but at least it's football's shite. Move to Murrayfield, which is also shite for football, realise it's shite and have no option of having our own stadium to redevelop would be a shite decision.Change for changes sake isn't a good idea. Keep Hampden and when funds become available redevelop and improve. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.