Hampden Park has it had its Day ?

[HibeeJibee]

What rail and road access? Remember that you're talking about getting 70,000 there for kick-off and then away after FT.

Also the idea of solving an alleged surfeit of white elephants by constructing an additional white elephant in a town of 40,000-odd people seems totally bizarre.

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Take the national team on tour for smaller games - a packed Easter Road, Rugby Park or Pittodrie would create a great atmosphere and would allow the national team a far greater reach than having fans from all over Scotland travel to Glasgow.

Scotland rarely drop below 30,000 for qualifiers, and rarely below 20,000 for friendlies at Hampden.

We already play low key friendlies elsewhere eg Estonia and Faroes (Pittordrie), Australia and Qatar (Easter Road). Anything more attractive and it's played at Hampden as it needs a stadium with more than 20k capacity.

[grazza]

I wonder how for example Stadium MK got built give it far exceeded what was needed for MK Dons and they are only tenants. Given that Hampden and Murrayfield are limited to is it 3 or 4 concerts at a push each year due to concerns from local residents maybe a 30K stadium with each access to the A77 and perhaps some other transport links could be an option. The stadium could be used a convert venue more often but also be used for things like Scottish Cup/ League cup semi's. Perhaps if premiership play off final was one off that would be ideal location. Also when the Rugby team play their Autumn friendlies not big enough for Murrayfield they could play there and perhaps a pro Rugby team could be tenant there e.g. Glasgow for bigger matches. Location wise I think from a commercial point of view its about the catchment area and infrastructure so probably would be in between Glasgow and Edinburgh but probably closer to Glasgow.  

[bendan]

I think it would have been good to have a national stadium shared between rugby and football, but to put it in some small town would have been ridiculous. Unfortunately neither sport is likely to agree to a move to the other's base city. We are where we are. I think we should just look at improving Hampden at some point by building new E, W and N stands close to the (realigned closer to the south stand) pitch. There's too much expensively fitted out space below the south stand to knock it down.

[Salvo Montalbano]

For sure. Although they spent a lot of money on the North Stand increasing the food outlets and stuff for the Commonwealth Games too remember. 

It's been done though - there are plenty of stadia in Germany where they've done away with the running track to make an "English-style" as they call it stadium and of course the Delle Alpi was converted very successfully albeit at quite high cost.

Unless Glasgow wants to bid for a World Championship Athletics or another Commonwealth Games there's no real need to have the track at Hampden any longer. Actually seeing the goals from behind the other set would be a nice bonus.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Other than the politics of it as you say theres no reason not to just use parkhead and ibrox. Is it realy such a big deal anyway. Works in spain

[Hampden Diehard]

13 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Other than the politics of it as you say theres no reason not to just use parkhead and ibrox. Is it realy such a big deal anyway. Works in spain

If you look at the attendances at Spain's home matches, it doesn't work all that well at all.

Matches played at Hampden give the SFA money, rather than ramping up the cash that already goes to Rangers and Celtic.  Anything going to the SFA is a wee bit more likely to help Scottish football in general.  That can't be said for anything going to the Old Firm.  Anyway, it would take a brave man to come down on the side of either Ibrox or Parkhead as the national stadium.  If you decide to shuttle between the two of them so that neither of them takes offence, you'd be as well keeping the games at Hampden.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Aye except keeping hanpden means a shite experience for fans. Face it theyr both much better placed to watch a game. Besides you only need to give them a fee for hiring out the ground , they woulndt get to keep all the ticket money.

When the 2 of them play in cup semis and finals it can be as simple as a coin toss for the ground. Maybe give the "away" team 60 % of tickets or something. Lets face it the old firm greet there eyes out when they think the other side is getting a better desl than them. They will do there paranoid greetin when it comes to ground selection and the rest of us will shrug our shoulders and not give a f**k

[Burnie_man]

On ‎15‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 11:59, Salvo Montalbano said:

It's been done though - there are plenty of stadia in Germany where they've done away with the running track to make an "English-style" as they call it stadium and of course the Delle Alpi was converted very successfully albeit at quite high cost.

The Stadio Delle Alpi was demolished and Juventus's new stadium built next door.

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Aye except keeping hanpden means a shite experience for fans. Face it theyr both much better placed to watch a game. Besides you only need to give them a fee for hiring out the ground , they woulndt get to keep all the ticket money.

When the 2 of them play in cup semis and finals it can be as simple as a coin toss for the ground. Maybe give the "away" team 60 % of tickets or something. Lets face it the old firm greet there eyes out when they think the other side is getting a better desl than them. They will do there paranoid greetin when it comes to ground selection and the rest of us will shrug our shoulders and not give a f**k

 

Hampden can undoubtedly be improved, altered/rebuilt whatever, but it's not a "shite experience for fans" as it is.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

 

Hampden can undoubtedly be improved, altered/rebuilt whatever, but it's not a "shite experience for fans" as it is.

If you like goin for a day on the lash with your mates and having a sing along its fine. For watching football its awfull. Lucky if 20% of the seats have a decent view

[Burnie_man]

24 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

 

 

If you like goin for a day on the lash with your mates and having a sing along its fine. For watching football its awfull. Lucky if 20% of the seats have a decent view

 

 

Not really, I attend all Scotland games there and most of the time I'm driving, my view from the West Stand (in the blocks closest to the North) is not the best in world football, but neither is it a "shite experience". The seats in both upper and lower South offer as good a view as anywhere, as do the North. The problem areas are directly behind the goals. It's that part of the stadium that needs addressing.

I've been in plenty of stadiums around Europe where it is a "shite experience" as an away fan. the seats I had in the Parc de Princes for a Euro16 Finals match were the worst I have ever had, and they cost £80.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Burnie_man

[HibeeJibee]

6 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

If you look at the attendances at Spain's home matches, it doesn't work all that well at all.

Matches played at Hampden give the SFA money, rather than ramping up the cash that already goes to Rangers and Celtic.  Anything going to the SFA is a wee bit more likely to help Scottish football in general.  That can't be said for anything going to the Old Firm.  Anyway, it would take a brave man to come down on the side of either Ibrox or Parkhead as the national stadium.  If you decide to shuttle between the two of them so that neither of them takes offence, you'd be as well keeping the games at Hampden.

Spain also has large numbers of suitable stadiums spread around the country, and all their cup-ties are played at neutral venues (except the Copa del Rey Final which moves around each year)... It's a different situation in Scotland where the only football stadiums over 20,000 are in Glasgow and belong to the 2 biggest clubs - also each other's biggest rivals - and there are 6 (or 7) significant neutral SFs & Finals each season, and the only other stadium is very large and owned by a rival sport.

[Hampden Diehard]

On 8/23/2016 at 15:08, effeffsee_the2nd said:

 

If you like goin for a day on the lash with your mates and having a sing along its fine. For watching football its awfull. Lucky if 20% of the seats have a decent view

 

Your 20% figure is pish.  OK, give us the benefit of your experience - how many seats at Ibrox and Parkhead have a decent view?  And make sure you exclude the seats at both grounds that have a restricted view.

[Hampden Diehard]

On 8/23/2016 at 12:29, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Besides you only need to give them a fee for hiring out the ground , they woulndt get to keep all the ticket money.
 

Promise - the last time I reply to your nonsense.  Who said anything about them keeping the gate receipts?  The SFA hire a ground for the games, either at Hampden or anywhere else.  This is what happens at any game organised by them or the SPFL for that matter; the number of tickets sold or the prices are not an issue.  It's the size of the rental fee that is the point, and I know that the fee for both Ibrox or Parkhead was horrendous when Hampden was out of use.  And that translates into higher ticket prices.  It's a lose / lose situation for everyone except the club whose ground is being used.

[HibeeJibee]

Relevant point that. As I recall there was substantial controversy when it turned-out Celtic had made more out of the Dundee Utd v St Johnstone final than either of the finalists...

[effeffsee_the2nd]

The north stand with its 9k is a good view. The south curves away from the park behind the dug outs altho its not the worst in the world. Behind the goals its murder. A corner up the other end and your blind

[dogmc]

Hampden is a terrible stadium. Fans are far too far away from the park. Its a terrible place to watch football.

Scotland has far too many big grounds. Edinburgh has Murrayfield (67,000) and Glasgow has Hampden (52,000), Ibrox (51,000) and Celtic Park (61,000). Between the 4 grounds you've got a combined capacity of 231,000. Murrayfield only sells out for the Six Nations. Hampden only sells out for cup finals, and even then it's not a guarantee. We have enough stadiums in Scotland that are capable of hosting any number of lower grade international matches - Easter Road, Rugby Park, Pittodrie or the 2 club grounds in Glasgow.

Scotland needs a single national stadium that can be used for football and rugby. The Welsh managed it with the Millenium stadium. We don't need ageing white elephants that offer poor value to their respective sports. Take the national team on tour for smaller games - a packed Easter Road, Rugby Park or Pittodrie would create a great atmosphere and would allow the national team a far greater reach than having fans from all over Scotland travel to Glasgow.

We need a single national stadium to be built in a central location - I'd go for Stirling because of it's road and rail access to most of the country.

If we are going to use one stadium surely better to utilise murrayfield than spend tens / hundreds of millions on a new one.

[banana]

9 minutes ago, dogmc said:

If we are going to use one stadium surely better to utilise murrayfield than spend tens / hundreds of millions on a new one.

Murrayfield has a fair gap from stands to pitch as bad as Hampden, so half the point in moving is lost.

How the f**k did Scottish rugby afford to build it?

Edited September 2, 2016 by banana

[gannonball]

2 hours ago, banana said:

Murrayfield has a fair gap from stands to pitch as bad as Hampden, so half the point in moving is lost.

Couldn't say I have been particularly bothered by the gap from the stands whenever I have been, it's a combination of that and lack of gradient at Hampden that makes it an atrocious stadium for atmosphere. Murrayfield pisses all over Hampden for just about everything.