Was that Hampden's last hurrah?

[forameus]

7 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

This is doing my nut in.

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

 

Agreed that it isn't quite as simple, but at the moment we have neither of those, and there's very unlikely to be the funding or appetite to do both, so it's a fair point to make.  If we got one of those, we presumably wouldn't get the other due to "it's been a tough year" etc etc.  Of the two, I'd far rather the latter.

At the end of the day, would having a shiny new stadium (or shiny "new" Hampden with its modifications) make that much of a difference?   We've already seen that when it's a big game, and there's something big to play for, Hampden can deliver a great atmosphere.  Actually having some success as a national team would probably solve our problems with Hampden overnight.  It's hard to bring complaints about the view or atmosphere at your stadium when you're looking forward to a major tournament.  If we're shite, out of contention and playing Lithuania at home, we could have the greatest stadium in the world and no-one would give a shit.  

[JT1867]

On 12/12/2017 at 09:55, HibeeJibee said:

SFA powwow is tomorrow according to today's paper, which strikes a sombre note about Hampden's prospects, although apparently concern about lost revenues streams has raised its head.

Presumably timed to coincide they've released a survey from the Supporters Association claiming only 15% of fans want to stay at Hampden, which depending on the wording astonished me.

 

On 12/12/2017 at 10:35, Armand 2 said:

Fergus McCann calling it correctly again.

The day of the League Cup final Brendan Rodgers is in the paper slating Hampden, the day before the SFA were meant to decide on their future involvement at Hampden Fergus McCann appears from nowhere to slag off the stadium.

If I was paranoid I would think there was an agenda connecting these two events.

[Lurkst]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 10:05, The Moonster said:

Sorry, but what the f**k has that got to do with anything? I know Simon very well and I doubt you'll meet someone more passionate about Scottish football than him. He regularly travels the length of the UK to watch Dumbarton every week and the work he has done for our Trust is honestly ridiculous when you consider the amount of time his actual job takes up. I don't agree with everything the SFSA put out there, but I know if it was a choice between him and Regan for running our game, it's an absolute no brainer. If you think good old Scottish you can do a better job then offer your time and services, I'm sure he'll be glad for the break.

Fair doos, your mate's support is admirable. I'm just a bit scunnered with the likes of Doncaster and Regan coming up here and not improving things at all.

However I didn't like the way the supporters' group survey was skewed to show minimal support for Hampden when in fact maintaining a stand-alone national football stadium was the preferred choice.

[Ross.]

On 12/14/2017 at 13:36, 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

While what you say is correct, I wonder why the Welsh football team no longer play there and instead use the Cardiff City Stadium?

[Burnie_man]

17 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.

Did the FA stop doing those things when Wembley was being built? I genuinely don't know but I'm doubting they did.

[HibeeJibee]

So we're magicking-up £120,000,000 now instead of £60,000,000?

If that's doable, fine, though you can still argue that if so we should spend the full £120M on facilities and development.

I've seen no indication that £60M is going to be easily found though - certainly government and lottery haven't cash to splash - nevermind double that.

[1320Lichtie]

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

I never said there was.

All I’m saying is it isn’t necessarily as simple as having one or the other. People keep saying that and it’s frustrating.

[Burnie_man]

So we're magicking-up £120,000,000 now instead of £60,000,000?

If that's doable, fine, though you can still argue that if so we should spend the full £120M on facilities and development.

I've seen no indication that £60M is going to be easily found though - certainly government and lottery haven't cash to splash - nevermind double that.

Who mentioned £120m?

[RandomGuy.]

People would regret it if we left Hampden. The choices are Hampden, Murrayfield, where 2/3rds of the stadium have a dreadful view and the facilities consist of a few burger vans twenty yards from the stadium (honestly, having to leave the stadium at half time to pay £7 for an undercooked burger is absolutely fucking dreadful), or Ibrox and Celtic Park, where the vast majority of money is filtered straight into the two biggest clubs in the country.

I know what I'd rather be going for, and I suspect I know what the SFA will do.

[Gordopolis]

People would regret it if we left Hampden. The choices are Hampden, Murrayfield, where 2/3rds of the stadium have a dreadful view and the facilities consist of a few burger vans twenty yards from the stadium (honestly, having to leave the stadium at half time to pay £7 for an undercooked burger is absolutely fucking dreadful), or Ibrox and Celtic Park, where the vast majority of money is filtered straight into the two biggest clubs in the country.

I know what I'd rather be going for, and I suspect I know what the SFA will do.

Have to agree.
My ideal world preference would be a purpose built super stadium but that's not going to happen. If we lose hampden, being homeless will become the norm and we'll never go back to having our own place.
So, hang onto it for now until we get a progressive, adventurous regime leading the SFA

[1320Lichtie]

Have to agree.
My ideal world preference would be a purpose built super stadium but that's not going to happen. If we lose hampden, being homeless will become the norm and we'll never go back to having our own place.
So, hang onto it for now until we get a progressive, adventurous regime leading the SFA

The national stadium of Poland is the model for me. Never been in a better atmosphere.

[Tulloch Gorum]

42 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

Have to agree.
My ideal world preference would be a purpose built super stadium but that's not going to happen. If we lose hampden, being homeless will become the norm and we'll never go back to having our own place.
So, hang onto it for now until we get a progressive, adventurous regime leading the SFA

lol, good one.

[Goalie Hamish]

6 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

The national stadium of Poland is the model for me. Never been in a better atmosphere.

Top class stadium, as is the new one in Bucharest.  I think both are in the 50-55k capacity range. Let's nick one.

[HibeeJibee]

Steven Naismith has weighed-in.

Says we should leave Hampden and rent places as it'd save money... advocates playing at Ibrox, Parkhead and Murrayfield as empty seats and space behind the goals hurts the atmosphere.

Also throws Rugby Park out there as a potential venue - provided it's turned back to grass.

No, I wouldn't know where to start either.

[RandomGuy.]

Anyone with an incorrectly spelt surname should just be ignored, tbh

[Enigma]

Murrayfield, where 2/3rds of the stadium have a dreadful view

[emoji23]

[BucksburnDandy]

So the Scottish FA has apparently told Queens Park that it isn't staying at Hampden under the current terms. Let negotiations commence, but surely the media will finally realise how seriously the Scottish FA is considering leaving Hampden for good.

[red23]

I'm just amazed the SFA would do anything that causes the boat to be rocked a bit in case any of them are found out to not have a clue how to do their jobs.

They are living like bankers. Untouchable.

Edited January 4, 2018 by red23

[NathanQP]

Looking further into the nonsense survey that was done by the national convention of Yer Da’s.

The “only 15% of people surveyed wanted to stay at Hampden” is misleading when 26% voted for a new Hampden, an option that is not on the table so shouldn’t be considered in their survey.

Now I’m not saying that the whole of that 26% would fall into the stay at Hampden section but it needs to be said that the number would increase.

[Ross.]

7 hours ago, red23 said:

I'm just amazed the SFA would do anything that causes the boat to be rocked a bit in case any of them are found out to not have a clue how to do their jobs.

They are living like bankers. Untouchable.

The cynic in me still feels the SFA are looking at an ideal situation of forcing QP to sell them Hampden or worst case scenario getting the same access as they currently have at a much reduced price. They absolutely are not thinking of the long term benefits to the Scottish game of any scenario, though anything positive that comes from it will be claimed in the end as part of their thinking. All empire building and ego massaging.