The final World Cup game at Hampden? - Page 10 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The final World Cup game at Hampden?


Toepoke

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Absolutely not - that ludicrous state of affairs should have been sorted once and for all in 2000 and if Hampden is to be kept and redeveloped then it should be this time

How exactly? Even if that was sorted youre not convincing me spending millions on Hampden isn't throwing good money after bad and we couldn't do something more productive with that kind of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slasher said:

How exactly? Even if that was sorted youre not convincing me spending millions on Hampden isn't throwing good money after bad and we couldn't do something more productive with that kind of money.

Again - you are relying on the current SFA to do something productive with "that kind of money" which they havent done in my lifetime - Iceland being the perfect example of a small nation's FA trying to do everything to keep up with the wider footballing world.

Scotland have qualified for 6 World Cups and 2 European Championships in my lifetime and raked in millions from TV, advertising and sponsorship deals

Add on top of the millions made from that to the other millions made from replica kits & sales starting back in 1978 (remembering that we are arguably the best supported of all the home nations) and yet in that same lifetime the SFA have always pleaded poverty.

"Rather invest in grass roots" has always been the SFA's argument and look how that has worked out not to mention the facilities.

When did we last produce a World Class footballer ?

Personally - and it's just my opinion - not having a National Stadium & obliterating the history of all thats went before there is just another dilution of the Scottish Game that if whilst not dead is on life support.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, adamntg said:

The survey also criticises the value for money and the catering at Hampden - that's got nothing to do with the venue itself and wouldn't change at Murrayfield.

I would love to redevelop Hampden properly.

 

Anybody who moans about catering at the fitba’ can fuck off to the pictures. Having a decent pie or whatever is fine but using it as a main point in whether a ground is good or not is shite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, adamntg said:

He's an arse.  Always did like petty point-scoring and revenge.

Do the English have to tolerate this nonsense about not needing Wembley when they have the biggest and best stadia in the world?  We need Hampden exactly because of small-minded tribal attitudes like McCann's,

You've answered your own question

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Again - you are relying on the current SFA to do something productive with "that kind of money" which they havent done in my lifetime - Iceland being the perfect example of a small nation's FA trying to do everything to keep up with the wider footballing world.

Scotland have qualified for 6 World Cups and 2 European Championships in my lifetime and raked in millions from TV, advertising and sponsorship deals

Add on top of the millions made from that to the other millions made from replica kits & sales starting back in 1978 (remembering that we are arguably the best supported of all the home nations) and yet in that same lifetime the SFA have always pleaded poverty.

"Rather invest in grass roots" has always been the SFA's argument and look how that has worked out not to mention the facilities.

When did we last produce a World Class footballer ?

Personally - and it's just my opinion - not having a National Stadium & obliterating the history of all thats went before there is just another dilution of the Scottish Game that if whilst not dead is on life support.  

 

You do realise that we've been tied to ploughing money into Hampden that whole time you're talking about?

Sorry, but if history and tradition are all you have to offer as an argument for retaining Hampden, I'm out. Loads of iconic stadia the world over have closed because they've had their day. Hampden is just another, it's time people accepted that.

6 hours ago, Ormond said:

As opposed to fattening the Old Firm’s coffers? Aye, that’s fair right enough. :rolleyes:

Aye, cos that's what this debate is all about Ormond 😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 10:16 AM, adamntg said:

Do the English have to tolerate this nonsense about not needing Wembley when they have the biggest and best stadia in the world?  We need Hampden exactly because of small-minded tribal attitudes like McCann's,

 

On 12/12/2017 at 11:11 AM, macy37 said:

The difference is Wembley is a great stadium for watching football in where as Hampden is an abortion of a stadium.

 

For me this is the root of so many of Scotland's problems. We automatically compare ourselves to England in so many ways, and then quickly polarise the situation - They're great, we're the worst. It's not our fault, it's years of brainwashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dogbiscuit said:

 

 

For me this is the root of so many of Scotland's problems. We automatically compare ourselves to England in so many ways, and then quickly polarise the situation - They're great, we're the worst. It's not our fault, it's years of brainwashing.

i remember on the Hampden tour being told that the refurbishment cost £60m whilst Wembley was £800m.  Both mostly paid for by the British Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, adamntg said:

i remember on the Hampden tour being told that the refurbishment cost £60m whilst Wembley was £800m.  Both mostly paid for by the British Government.

Yeh it seems they had a bottomless pit of money when it came to re-building the self-proclaimed 'home of football'. I wish Hampden had had more investment and a proper re-build, and I still want them to find a way to do that. I wish it was a better stadium with seats closer to the pitch. But at the end of the day we still have a pretty good stadium. Just not amazing.

Edited by Dogbiscuit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 11:09 AM, macy37 said:

He is 100% WRONG!!

couldn't believe the utter tripe McCann has come out with. A disgraceful article by him. Hopefully Celtic Park will never ever be used again for a Scotland international. (It's an unpleasant ground to go to anyway)

And McCann obviously has no sense of hisiory and no regard whatsoever for Scotland. Hampden is our home and must always stay that way.

I've been reading through pages of messages here and it seems the large majority agree that Hampden must remain our home stadium. I DO like the idea of lowering the pitch and adding a new layer of seating . That should be a relatively cheap development that would pay for itself in quick time.

I have been once to Murrayfield  to see Hearts when they previously used it.  I found it very soulless and ugly. 

Hampden though has always felt right all the many times ive been there. Things can always be improved but Hampden has to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, buckielugger said:

He is 100% WRONG!!

couldn't believe the utter tripe McCann has come out with. A disgraceful article by him. Hopefully Celtic Park will never ever be used again for a Scotland international. (It's an unpleasant ground to go to anyway)

And McCann obviously has no sense of hisiory and no regard whatsoever for Scotland. Hampden is our home and must always stay that way.

I've been reading through pages of messages here and it seems the large majority agree that Hampden must remain our home stadium. I DO like the idea of lowering the pitch and adding a new layer of seating . That should be a relatively cheap development that would pay for itself in quick time.

I have been once to Murrayfield  to see Hearts when they previously used it.  I found it very soulless and ugly. 

Hampden though has always felt right all the many times ive been there. Things can always be improved but Hampden has to stay.

I agree that one of Murrayfield's many drawbacks is that it is an ugly bastard of a stadium. Dunno how they made it look so bland and uncool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 9:44 AM, biffer said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42316749

Murrayfield the favoured option amongst fans?

 

Some of the anti-Murrayfiled views are basically people trying to find any excuse that games shouldn't be there because either 1) it's rugby and that's for nonces or 2) it's Edinburgh and that's for nonces

good points to be fair. but it is a shit stadium

On 12/12/2017 at 10:11 AM, adamntg said:

Main problem with moving to Murrayfield is i think the place would be 3/4s empty most of the time.  Edinburgh doesn't have the appetite of Glasgow for international football, as evidenced by 10,000 turning up at Easter Road when it gets a go.

The big issue with Hampden is the view, it's too shallow.  They did the refurb on the cheap and it shows.  Not that I'm saying anything that everyone doesn't know.  Well done me, master of stating the bleeding obvious.

The survey also criticises the value for money and the catering at Hampden - that's got nothing to do with the venue itself and wouldn't change at Murrayfield.

I would love to redevelop Hampden properly.

 

agree with this, and the other stadiums they really could only use for friendlys or smaller teams due to guaranteeing a ticket to all SSC members. Although that might change as I imagine many will drop off soon.

 

On 12/12/2017 at 2:07 PM, Toepoke said:

He's not very gracious towards Queen's Park for helping out when his stadium was falling apart.

 

Costs about the same as Stewart Regan. I know what I'd rather have...

 

you make a very good point!!!

On 12/12/2017 at 7:44 PM, Toepoke said:

It'd be good to see a survey of the SSC members, the people who actually go to games at Hampden...

 

What do we matter, we just pay for most of the shit......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/12/2017 at 7:01 PM, buckielugger said:

I've been reading through pages of messages here and it seems the large majority agree that Hampden must remain our home stadium. I DO like the idea of lowering the pitch and adding a new layer of seating . That should be a relatively cheap development that would pay for itself in quick time.

Toepoke has correctly pointed out a few times that a burn still runs beneath Hampden Park. 

The pitch cannot be lowered any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets end this talk of rebuilding Hampden because IT WON'T HAPPEN.

Funding is not there and wouldn't be given. Why would it? It is a Grade A stadium which UEFA have chosen to host Champions League Finals and other club finals. It has hosted domestic finals and Commonwealth Games - that says it all. It is regarded as a premier stadium as is and not meriting funding for a revamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/12/2017 at 5:04 AM, Caledonian Craig said:

Lets end this talk of rebuilding Hampden because IT WON'T HAPPEN.

Funding is not there and wouldn't be given. Why would it? It is a Grade A stadium which UEFA have chosen to host Champions League Finals and other club finals. It has hosted domestic finals and Commonwealth Games - that says it all. It is regarded as a premier stadium as is and not meriting funding for a revamp.

Did I read recently that it’s actually the 3rd rated stadium in Glasgow in UEFA’s latest rankings?

Or have I imagined that because it’s the reality in my mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, macy37 said:

Did I read recently that it’s actually the 3rd rated stadium in Glasgow in UEFA’s latest rankings?

Or have I imagined that because it’s the reality in my mind?

Irrelevant. The relevance is that no sane person is going to grant funding for a stadium in great condition that hosts football matches at the highest level as well as other events.

Fans have to accept staying at Hampden in its current guise only or else push for a move away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Irrelevant. The relevance is that no sane person is going to grant funding for a stadium in great condition that hosts football matches at the highest level as well as other events.

Fans have to accept staying at Hampden in its current guise only or else push for a move away.

It’s relevant in the fact that it isn’t actually a good stadium and is in UEFA eyes the 3rd ranked in the city. 

Also where it’s ranked by fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 9:36 PM, macy37 said:

Did I read recently that it’s actually the 3rd rated stadium in Glasgow in UEFA’s latest rankings?

That cannot true. I'd be stunned if it was.

 

 

 

Surely the only problem with Hampden is the distance behind the goals, but many stadiums have that; Berlin, Rome, two in Belgrade, Vienna, Moscow, etc...

Back to Hampden and I'd imagine facilities behind the scenes are top notch, which is what FIFA and UEFA really care about (not the facilities for us pesky fans).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, macy37 said:

It’s relevant in the fact that it isn’t actually a good stadium and is in UEFA eyes the 3rd ranked in the city. 

Also where it’s ranked by fans.

Yes but my point is that Hampden is in such top nick that there is no way anybody would fund a refurb. That being the case fans have to realize if we stay put it will be at an unchanged Hampden.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...