New Hampden

[The new Kia Ceed]

15 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Can I just ask, do folk here really want public money spent on this? After a decade of austerity we can't even adequately fund rape crisis centres, we're closing libraries and youth music services and withdrawing classroom assistants and all sorts of stuff. Our public sector has shrunk by about one-eighth in a decade. I don't know about anyone else but I'd be really angry if public money were used just to improve the sightlines at a football stadium. We pay for this ourselves or we say it's not that important.

Anyone confirm whether we (the taxpayers) paid for Wembley and West Ham's stadiums?    

 

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, The new Kia Ceed said:

Anyone confirm whether we (the taxpayers) paid for Wembley and West Ham's stadiums?    

 

Wembley - They got a big wodge from the lottery, and I think they got fairly large donations from the UK government and London authorities too. Just did a bit of googling and they got £20 million from DCMS. The economy was growing then, and that's the equivalent of £2 million for Scotland, so not a huge amount of money. I'd still prefer they hadn't, though. I was fine with the small amount of public money that went into the rebuild of Hampden in the 90s, it had to happen or the stadium would've been demolished, and there was a lot more money around then.

Olympic/West Ham - it does look like there's a big subsidy in there, though I think it's London taxpayers rather than us. There's been talk of a State Aids case from other London clubs, no idea what the latest on that is. But it's a perfect example of what shouldn't happen.

[Gordopolis]

26 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Can I just ask, do folk here really want public money spent on this? After a decade of austerity we can't even adequately fund rape crisis centres, we're closing libraries and youth music services and withdrawing classroom assistants and all sorts of stuff. Our public sector has shrunk by about one-eighth in a decade. I don't know about anyone else but I'd be really angry if public money were used just to improve the sightlines at a football stadium. We pay for this ourselves or we say it's not that important.

For me? No to a public spend. A small contribution in line with other projects is fine, but it would be wrong for a 'bail-out' style investment.

On the positive side, this should be a perfect vehicle for the SFA to reverse the perception that they are parochial, antiquated and myopic. Go out and drum up private investment. It won't be easy but it isn't impossible.

[bendan]

58 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Can I just ask, do folk here really want public money spent on this? After a decade of austerity we can't even adequately fund rape crisis centres, we're closing libraries and youth music services and withdrawing classroom assistants and all sorts of stuff. Our public sector has shrunk by about one-eighth in a decade. I don't know about anyone else but I'd be really angry if public money were used just to improve the sightlines at a football stadium. We pay for this ourselves or we say it's not that important.

Completely disagree. We spend vast amounts of money on an array of useless pish or minority interests. To say there's no money in the public pot for upgrading the national stadium of an activity that is hugely more influential in Scottish society than any other would be ridiculous. If there's no public money for football then there shouldn't be any for opera, theatre, galleries and the rest. 

[forameus]

3 minutes ago, bendan said:

Completely disagree. We spend vast amounts of money on an array of useless pish or minority interests. To say there's no money in the public pot for upgrading the national stadium of an activity that is hugely more influential in Scottish society than any other would be ridiculous. If there's no public money for football then there shouldn't be any for opera, theatre, galleries and the rest. 

And I'd disagree with that too.  I'd rather money was spent on a range of interests rather than let the SFA spunk away hundreds of millions on a stadium that we can partly fill in almost all the games we play in it.

If it comes to anything more than a small-to-nominal amount of public money, get it to f**k.  It just isn't worth it.

[bendan]

Just now, forameus said:

And I'd disagree with that too.  I'd rather money was spent on a range of interests rather than let the SFA spunk away hundreds of millions on a stadium that we can partly fill in almost all the games we play in it.

If it comes to anything more than a small-to-nominal amount of public money, get it to f**k.  It just isn't worth it.

I want money spent on a range of interests, too. There's nothing mutually exclusive about them. I'd agree that we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions of public money on Hampden, but it would be wrong if there's no contribution at all when funds can be found for other activities.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, bendan said:

I want money spent on a range of interests, too. There's nothing mutually exclusive about them. I'd agree that we shouldn't spend hundreds of millions of public money on Hampden, but it would be wrong if there's no contribution at all when funds can be found for other activities.

I see where you're coming from, but if an art gallery came asking for money because they want a new one, because some of their patrons think the current gallery is shite, I don't think they really deserve that much money.  Particularly if said art gallery had already tried to renovate it already, and pissed the money away then too. 

I just don't see a new Hampden as necessary enough to warrant a handout of my (admittedly small amount of) money.  Granted, other views may differ, and not like it's going to be some referendum anyway.  If they want public money, they'll likely get it.  And it'll give people something to be seething about when they inevitably f**k it up.

[bendan]

5 minutes ago, forameus said:

I see where you're coming from, but if an art gallery came asking for money because they want a new one, because some of their patrons think the current gallery is shite, I don't think they really deserve that much money.  Particularly if said art gallery had already tried to renovate it already, and pissed the money away then too. 

I just don't see a new Hampden as necessary enough to warrant a handout of my (admittedly small amount of) money.  Granted, other views may differ, and not like it's going to be some referendum anyway.  If they want public money, they'll likely get it.  And it'll give people something to be seething about when they inevitably f**k it up.

Well we can agree that if public money is provided, there needs to be more scrutiny over what they are doing with it than last time.

[Diamonds are Forever]

21 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

???? 

 

Look at the pictures, you've probably got a space the width of a 6 lane running track behind the dugouts, then the space in front of the dug out to the pitch. It's hard to estimate but I'd say somewhere between 15-18 yards between the stand and the pitch. Compare that to a Celtic Park or Tynecastle where the dugout is basically in the stand and you've then got about 6 yards to the pitch.

[Diamonds are Forever]

19 hours ago, GordonS said:

I get what you're saying, but the angle of the stand makes no difference to the distance from the pitch; 20 rows is 20 rows, whether it's 20 degrees or 35 degrees. The problem is the sightline.

Anyway, the discussion is moot - there's no way there's going to be money to rebuild the least valuable parts of the ground, with the lowest ticket prices and least interest in hospitality.

 

That was my point though, the shallowness (not sure if that's the correct word..) of the stand means it doesn't look that great a view. You could be at the back of a stand that is at an angle of 50 degrees, you'd feel on top of the pitch and have a good view. Or be the same distance away in a stand that is 20 degrees and barely see a thing.

The away end at Love Street used to be my favourite stand for away games due to the steepness of it, you had a great view no matter where you were and even in the back row felt on top of the action. Obviously it's a far smaller scale, but I'd want much steeper stands behind the goal than Stuttgart have.

[HibeeJibee]

6 hours ago, realmadrid said:

I think the SFA may be pinning their hopes on getting funding via the 2030 world cup bid, at a guess we would get a maximum of 2 stadia in Scotland in the bid and the other may not need much spent on it (probably Murrayfield)

Is this with public money, or with profits from hosting (either mortgaged / lent in advance or banked and the work done afterwards)? In either case the argument is that such tens upon tens of millions could be better spent on grassroots facilities. In the former case also that it could be better spent on hospital, schools, transport, housing, culture, etc. etc. In the latter case also that it would be insufficient to do a proper job.

In the case of public money is another big issue not the existence of 2 other rectangular stadiums hosting 50,000 (or more) already in Glasgow? So you go to the government for £75M or £100M or whatever and they say "isn't football rich among sports?" and "aren't there already 2 suitable alternative stadiums in Glasgow?" - and the reply is, what, "aye but we need to bring some seats closer to the pitch!"...?

[DA Baracus]

Agreed. If there was any government funding for football I'd far rather it went to building facilities like all weather and indoor pitches across the country, as well as being used to subsidise costs for hiring them, not to mention grants for local and youth teams for equipment and the like.

 

[bendan]

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Is this with public money, or with profits from hosting (either mortgaged / lent in advance or banked and the work done afterwards)? In either case the argument is that such tens upon tens of millions could be better spent on grassroots facilities. In the former case also that it could be better spent on hospital, schools, transport, housing, culture, etc. etc. In the latter case also that it would be insufficient to do a proper job.

In the case of public money is another big issue not the existence of 2 other rectangular stadiums hosting 50,000 (or more) already in Glasgow? So you go to the government for £75M or £100M or whatever and they say "isn't football rich among sports?" and "aren't there already 2 suitable alternative stadiums in Glasgow?" - and the reply is, what, "aye but we need to bring some seats closer to the pitch!"...?

The issue of other stadiums in Glasgow is really an argument that has already been decided. I can see the argument for grassroots facilities, but I don't think the money should be coming from the same pot. The hospitals/schools argument is too simplistic.

As I said only three sides need rebuilt. The main stand already houses the most expensive elements of a stadium, so rebuilding the other three doesn't need to be as expensive as some are implying.

I'd say funds can come from a variety of sources, but it's completely appropriate for the government to contribute to something that will help develop that part of Glasgow, will support local employment，and is one of very few places that represent Scotland on the world stage. The government puts broadcasting restrictions on the Scottish Cup Final because of its social/cultural importance, so they should put at least a bit of funding in to reflect that importance.

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, bendan said:

Completely disagree. We spend vast amounts of money on an array of useless pish or minority interests. To say there's no money in the public pot for upgrading the national stadium of an activity that is hugely more influential in Scottish society than any other would be ridiculous. If there's no public money for football then there shouldn't be any for opera, theatre, galleries and the rest. 

There shouldn't be any public money to bring the seats in a theatre closer to the stage, after that theatre already got public money to rebuild in the 90s, in a city which already has two huge theatres and in which actors get paid millions.

What exactly is the public benefit?

1 hour ago, bendan said:

The issue of other stadiums in Glasgow is really an argument that has already been decided. I can see the argument for grassroots facilities, but I don't think the money should be coming from the same pot. The hospitals/schools argument is too simplistic.

As I said only three sides need rebuilt. The main stand already houses the most expensive elements of a stadium, so rebuilding the other three doesn't need to be as expensive as some are implying.

I'd say funds can come from a variety of sources, but it's completely appropriate for the government to contribute to something that will help develop that part of Glasgow, will support local employment，and is one of very few places that represent Scotland on the world stage. The government puts broadcasting restrictions on the Scottish Cup Final because of its social/cultural importance, so they should put at least a bit of funding in to reflect that importance.

Remodelling Hampden won't do anything to develop Mount Florida or Kings Park, or support local employment. The ground wouldn't be getting any bigger, or be used more frequently. Beyond the construction work there's no economic benefit at all. The only situation in which there's an economic argument is if the alternative is the SFA moving to Murrayfield. 

[D.A.F.C]

It needs renovated and that includes the main stand. There is no money to do it though and it will just deteriorate until it becomes unsafe or we manage to get funding. I know there’s lots of history and I would have been sad to see it go but surely Glasgow doesn’t need three 50k plus stadiums?

A forward thinking country like Germany would have got the two clubs to ground share and build a state of the art arena linked to public transport. What we have now is a joke of a ground with a fantastic history.

[forameus]

16 hours ago, bendan said:

Well we can agree that if public money is provided, there needs to be more scrutiny over what they are doing with it than last time.

Yeah, no argument with that.  

[thisal]

12 hours ago, bendan said:

The issue of other stadiums in Glasgow is really an argument that has already been decided. I can see the argument for grassroots facilities, but I don't think the money should be coming from the same pot. The hospitals/schools argument is too simplistic.

As I said only three sides need rebuilt. The main stand already houses the most expensive elements of a stadium, so rebuilding the other three doesn't need to be as expensive as some are implying.

I'd say funds can come from a variety of sources, but it's completely appropriate for the government to contribute to something that will help develop that part of Glasgow, will support local employment，and is one of very few places that represent Scotland on the world stage. The government puts broadcasting restrictions on the Scottish Cup Final because of its social/cultural importance, so they should put at least a bit of funding in to reflect that importance.

Exactly Celtic built  3 stands for less than SFA built 1.

[King Kebab]

What is the minimum capacity figure for grounds hosting World Cup or European Championship Finals matches???

[HibeeJibee]

Euros = 30,000

WC = 40,000

However only a certain number of stadiums can be in the lowest brackets... Euro 2024 bidding only allows 4 stadiums under 40k (and 7 under 50k) - WC 2026 required 60k and 80k for opener, SFs and Final.

[bendan]

On 19/09/2018 at 22:12, GordonS said:

There shouldn't be any public money to bring the seats in a theatre closer to the stage, after that theatre already got public money to rebuild in the 90s, in a city which already has two huge theatres and in which actors get paid millions.

What exactly is the public benefit?

Remodelling Hampden won't do anything to develop Mount Florida or Kings Park, or support local employment. The ground wouldn't be getting any bigger, or be used more frequently. Beyond the construction work there's no economic benefit at all. The only situation in which there's an economic argument is if the alternative is the SFA moving to Murrayfield. 

If it was simply about moving seats nearer the pitch, I'd agree, but I'd say the three older sides of Hampden are out of date. The upgrade to these parts in the 1990s was simply to cover (or re-cover) and seat them, and it didn't cost that much. By far the biggest spend was for the new main stand, as that has all the extra facilities. I don't see many people saying we have to replace the main stand.

The comparison with arts venues is interesting, as places like the Usher Hall in Edinburgh have had more than one upgrade in the same time frame; on each occasion because the facilities were said to be out of date. We've also added the Festival Theatre here in Edinburgh (which cost much more than the redevelopment of the N/E/W parts of Hampden), done a major upgrade to the Lyceum, and now have the Leith Theatre, a new addition to a city full of venues that struggle to cover even operational expenses, which would not be the case with Hampden. I support all of that, by the way. It's what modern, complex, progressive societies do.

Hampden needs an upgrade, and when that gets done, everyone recognises that the seats should be brought closer to the pitch. If the upgrade is done properly, it would definitely enhance the local area, and it would also provide the possibility of other activities being incorporated into the new stands, just as the rebuilt main stand now has offices, a museum and other facilities that create more activity around the stadium on a day-to-day basis than before. 

As others have said, you'd hope the SFA could be ambitious and pro-active in raising funds themselves, for it should be possible to raise a lot without any support from the government. At the end of the day, though, if a lack of funds holds back redevelopment, there's absolutely nothing wrong with some money being provided by the government.