Bids to replace Hampden

[Texas Pete]

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I’m absolutely with you on the Record being a shower of cunts but I’d believe the quote from Queens Park and that’s good enough to see that the ball has been set rolling.

I definitely think there’s some truth to it. 

I’m surprised at the timing though given we don’t have a chief executive at the moment which suggests this was decided on a while ago. 

Could it be that the threat to leave Hampden was bullshit all along and an attempt to frighten Queens Park into accepting a low offer to sell?

[BucksburnDandy]

To me this is the right move. Offer to buy it and if QP aren't forthcoming then Murrayfield will welcome Scotland with open arms.

QP fans will be unhappy however ultimately this is the right move for the SFA. They need major backing and sponsorship to properly develop Hampden. The national game deserves a better ground.

[ShedTA]

Jesus Christ, I thought things couldn't get any worse. yes that's the best plan, spend many more millions on a dilapidated unsuitable stadium when there are 3 other perfectly good ones in the country. I would hate them to use Ibrox or celtic park but I would prefer that than them spending millions more on hampden. what a waste of cash just to try and cling onto the pathetic idea that we are still a force in international football.

the same people that appoint Alex McLeish come up with this genius plan. it says it all. the money should be spent on grass roots and decent facilities around the country, not trying to uphold the Glasgow centric sfa cabal of blazers, who quite frankly have shown that they are next to f*cking useless at running our game. get rid of the sfa and start again, with some people with real ideas, not dinosaurs stuck in the 60's/70's..

[adamntg]

12 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

Jesus Christ, I thought things couldn't get any worse. yes that's the best plan, spend many more millions on a dilapidated unsuitable stadium when there are 3 other perfectly good ones in the country. I would hate them to use Ibrox or celtic park but I would prefer that than them spending millions more on hampden. what a waste of cash just to try and cling onto the pathetic idea that we are still a force in international football.

the same people that appoint Alex McLeish come up with this genius plan. it says it all. the money should be spent on grass roots and decent facilities around the country, not trying to uphold the Glasgow centric sfa cabal of blazers, who quite frankly have shown that they are next to f*cking useless at running our game. get rid of the sfa and start again, with some people with real ideas, not dinosaurs stuck in the 60's/70's..

Hampden is a long way from dilapidated.

[drew]

9 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

Jesus Christ, I thought things couldn't get any worse. yes that's the best plan, spend many more millions on a dilapidated unsuitable stadium when there are 3 other perfectly good ones in the country. I would hate them to use Ibrox or celtic park but I would prefer that than them spending millions more on hampden. what a waste of cash just to try and cling onto the pathetic idea that we are still a force in international football.

the same people that appoint Alex McLeish come up with this genius plan. it says it all. the money should be spent on grass roots and decent facilities around the country, not trying to uphold the Glasgow centric sfa cabal of blazers, who quite frankly have shown that they are next to f*cking useless at running our game. get rid of the sfa and start again, with some people with real ideas, not dinosaurs stuck in the 60's/70's..

I disagree. If the decision was to be based on finances then Hampden wins evertime

Hampden and Murrayfield were shortlisted ahead of Ibrox or Celtic park because Ibrox and Celtic park were costing far more to rent.

Although Murrayfield is cheaper to rent the SFA won't be entitled to any of the money made from Murrayfield hosting concerts which they get from the Hampden deal.

In the long term it makes more financial sense to own a stadium than to keep paying rent.

Hampden is not dilapidated. It is in a much better state than Ibrox or Parkhead. The only thing it has against it is the views but debatable if Parkhead is any better.

[wanderer]

Interesting development.

Part of me feels this is a grab to get Hampden on the cheap, in order to sell it for a tidy profit down the road, then look at the Murrayfield/on the road idea again.....

[ShedTA]

13 minutes ago, adamntg said:

Hampden is a long way from dilapidated.

ok fair enough but its not as good as at least 2 others in Scotland. your nit picking a bit adam. message is the same

 

[ShedTA]

10 minutes ago, drew said:

I disagree. If the decision was to be based on finances then Hampden wins evertime

Hampden and Murrayfield were shortlisted ahead of Ibrox or Celtic park because Ibrox and Celtic park were costing far more to rent.

Although Murrayfield is cheaper to rent the SFA won't be entitled to any of the money made from Murrayfield hosting concerts which they get from the Hampden deal.

In the long term it makes more financial sense to own a stadium than to keep paying rent.

Hampden is not dilapidated. It is in a much better state than Ibrox or Parkhead. The only thing it has against it is the views but debatable if Parkhead is any better.

ok so its a far inferior stadium for view and experience. whats the answer. spend more money to change it when we have alternatives available ?

the sfa wont lose all their money to rent elsewhere.  it will only be a proportion that they earn from match days that  they will pay to go to say murrayfield or celtic park. not sure what that is though as information out of the sfa is shit as always.

sorry parkhead is not better than hampden for views? have you ever been to parkhead recently?

but hey lets just pay for and maintain another stadium so we have 4 over 50,000 in a country of 5 million people. f*cking madness. its just clinging onto the past - and that's whats holding our game back and has been for years.

[drew]

Just now, ShedTA said:

ok so its a far inferior stadium for view and experience. whats the answer. spend more money to change it when we have alternatives available ?

the sfa wont lose all their money to rent elsewhere.  it will only be a proportion that they earn from match days that  they will pay to go to say murrayfield or celtic park. not sure what that is though as information out of the sfa is shit as always.

sorry parkhead is not better than hampden for views? have you ever been to parkhead recently?

but hey lets just pay for and maintain another stadium so we have 4 over 50,000 in a country of 5 million people. f*cking madness. its just clinging onto the past - and that's whats holding our game back and has been for years.

It's an inferior stadium to Murrayfield I agree but it really isn't that bad a ground. Would be nice to bring the ends behind the goal in but it isn't necessary.

Never said they would lose all there money to rent. What I said is financially Ibrox and Parkhead are charging more in rent. Murrayfield is cheaper I believe.

Have you sat in the away end at Parkhead. You're stuck behind a pillar blocking the majority of the pitch. You might be stuck a fair distance at Hampden but at least you can see the pitch.

You are right the SFA have to pay maintenance which they don't with the other 3 . Difference though is whether the SFA own or rent Hampden they get the money from non football events hosted at Hampden that more than make up for it.

Based purely on finance Hampden is the better option.

[ShedTA]

2 minutes ago, drew said:

It's an inferior stadium to Murrayfield I agree but it really isn't that bad a ground. Would be nice to bring the ends behind the goal in but it isn't necessary.

Never said they would lose all there money to rent. What I said is financially Ibrox and Parkhead are charging more in rent. Murrayfield is cheaper I believe.

Have you sat in the away end at Parkhead. You're stuck behind a pillar blocking the majority of the pitch. You might be stuck a fair distance at Hampden but at least you can see the pitch.

You are right the SFA have to pay maintenance which they don't with the other 3 . Difference though is whether the SFA own or rent Hampden they get the money from non football events hosted at Hampden that more than make up for it.

Based purely on finance Hampden is the better option.

that would cost millions if not 10's of millions. do you not see the waste here. far larger countries use club grounds or share with rugby because its more cost effective/ economical than maintaining several different stadiums. why do we have to be different in Scotland? because we cant see past the football bubble? 

95% of celtic park is a better view than that though. the away end is a small slice of it. its very good apart from that. I would favour murrayfield anyway.

Hampden wouldn't be better financially because to create a better stadium there the cost would far outstrip the cost of renting another ground for many years to come.  and the sfa would be better concentrating on getting to a major finals.  that would bring in far more than a few bloody pop concerts. 

I accept we have different opinions here but the waste of money for me just makes it madness. we can ill afford to spend any more on stadiums if we don't have to. 

[Toepoke]

25 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

but hey lets just pay for and maintain another stadium so we have 4 over 50,000 in a country of 5 million people. f*cking madness.

The population of Scotland isn't really relevant given the disproportional popularity of football.

We're pretty unique in having two huge clubs and a national side based in one city, while the 2nd most popular sport is based in another.

To me the status quo remains the best option.

 

[McDange]

Definitely now my favoured option. Murrayfield is a great stadium but the SFA would have to lease it meaning we would have football money being pumped into rugby. That said, need a commitment that the SFA will reinvest in Hampden and other facilities and not going into blazer pockets  

[in5omniac]

Would Queens Park then be paying the SFA rent if the latter bought it or would they play elsewhere?

[Toepoke]

5 minutes ago, in5omniac said:

Would Queens Park then be paying the SFA rent if the latter bought it or would they play elsewhere?

I'd like to think some kind of arrangement could be made with QPFC if Hampden is sold to the SFA, given their history with the venue and Scottish football in general.

 

[drew]

1 hour ago, ShedTA said:

that would cost millions if not 10's of millions. do you not see the waste here. far larger countries use club grounds or share with rugby because its more cost effective/ economical than maintaining several different stadiums. why do we have to be different in Scotland? because we cant see past the football bubble? 

95% of celtic park is a better view than that though. the away end is a small slice of it. its very good apart from that. I would favour murrayfield anyway.

Hampden wouldn't be better financially because to create a better stadium there the cost would far outstrip the cost of renting another ground for many years to come.  and the sfa would be better concentrating on getting to a major finals.  that would bring in far more than a few bloody pop concerts. 

I accept we have different opinions here but the waste of money for me just makes it madness. we can ill afford to spend any more on stadiums if we don't have to. 

I don't think we're ever going to agree.

If I thought it was financially better long term to play at Murrayfield or around the country then I'd ditch Hampden or put Hampden down as one of the stadiums when moving around.

Edited February 22, 2018 by drew

[daviebee]

3 hours ago, drew said:

It's an inferior stadium to Murrayfield I agree but it really isn't that bad a ground. Would be nice to bring the ends behind the goal in but it isn't necessary.

Never said they would lose all there money to rent. What I said is financially Ibrox and Parkhead are charging more in rent. Murrayfield is cheaper I believe.

Have you sat in the away end at Parkhead. You're stuck behind a pillar blocking the majority of the pitch. You might be stuck a fair distance at Hampden but at least you can see the pitch.

You are right the SFA have to pay maintenance which they don't with the other 3 . Difference though is whether the SFA own or rent Hampden they get the money from non football events hosted at Hampden that more than make up for it.

Based purely on finance Hampden is the better option.

I've been to plenty games at Hampden where I wished to fck that'd been the case...

[Clyde1998]

I think the SFA buying Hampden could be good for us in the long term, as it would the enable redevelopment of Hampden should funds become available to do so.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but Stuttgart converted their stadium from having an athletics track around it to being purely for football recently and the difference is huge:

It would be great if something like this was possible at Hampden.

[JECK]

18 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

I think the SFA buying Hampden could be good for us in the long term, as it would the enable redevelopment of Hampden should funds become available to do so.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but Stuttgart converted their stadium from having an athletics track around it to being purely for football recently and the difference is huge:

It would be great if something like this was possible at Hampden.

Cheers for this. I've basically trying my to imagine the same happening to hampden. I'd like to see this done personally.

[Gala Tartan Army (Borders)]

I wouldn't have confidence in any scheme where McRae and Pettrie are involved.

I can think back to 1996 where a sub-committee of equally talentless SFA Blazers managed to spend £63million concreting over the terraces and building ONE new stand , to give us the flawed Hampden we have today , While the Welsh managed to build a brilliant new Millenium stadium for £68 million .

If we didn't have the money to get Michael O'Neill where are we going to get the tens of millions it will take to buy and modernise Hampden?

I would like us to stay at Hampden but not if it is being fronted by McRae and Pettrie !

[Clyde1998]

23 minutes ago, Gala Tartan Army (Borders) said:

I wouldn't have confidence in any scheme where McRae and Pettrie are involved.

I can think back to 1996 where a sub-committee of equally talentless SFA Blazers managed to spend £63million concreting over the terraces and building ONE new stand , to give us the flawed Hampden we have today , While the Welsh managed to build a brilliant new Millenium stadium for £68 million .

If we didn't have the money to get Michael O'Neill where are we going to get the tens of millions it will take to buy and modernise Hampden?

I would like us to stay at Hampden but not if it is being fronted by McRae and Pettrie !

Aye - even Murrayfield was done up for £50m. It's a wonder how these numpties managed to spend so much for what we actually got.

[DoonTheSlope]

Queens Park must be off their heads to even consider a £2million offer(if that figure is correct). If reports are correct the SFA currently pay £300-400,000 a year to rent Hampden, plus they'll receive revenue from other sources such as functions etc plus concerts so why on earth would they accept a one of payment to have no say so on the future running of the place 

Are they now maybe trying to bargain for a cheaper deal at Murrayfield?

I smell bullshite

Edited February 22, 2018 by DoonTheSlope

[Toepoke]

2 hours ago, Clyde1998 said:

I think the SFA buying Hampden could be good for us in the long term, as it would the enable redevelopment of Hampden should funds become available to do so.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but Stuttgart converted their stadium from having an athletics track around it to being purely for football recently and the difference is huge:

It would be great if something like this was possible at Hampden.

I've seen that. Looks great but cost €60million.

 

1 hour ago, Gala Tartan Army (Borders) said:

I wouldn't have confidence in any scheme where McRae and Pettrie are involved.

I can think back to 1996 where a sub-committee of equally talentless SFA Blazers managed to spend £63million concreting over the terraces and building ONE new stand , to give us the flawed Hampden we have today , While the Welsh managed to build a brilliant new Millenium stadium for £68 million .

If we didn't have the money to get Michael O'Neill where are we going to get the tens of millions it will take to buy and modernise Hampden?

I would like us to stay at Hampden but not if it is being fronted by McRae and Pettrie !

 

1 hour ago, Clyde1998 said:

Aye - even Murrayfield was done up for £50m. It's a wonder how these numpties managed to spend so much for what we actually got.

Most of the cash spent on Hampden went on the South Stand, which is an excellent facility but only provides 17,000 seats.

 

[Gala Tartan Army (Borders)]

33 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

 

 

 

Most of the cash spent on Hampden went on the South Stand, which is an excellent facility but only provides 17,000 seats.

 

So you're saying the SFA spent the same money on ONE stand as it cost to rebuild the whole of Murrayfield, that's totally nuts !

 

[DaveyDenoon]

3 hours ago, DoonTheSlope said:

Queens Park must be off their heads to even consider a £2million offer(if that figure is correct). If reports are correct the SFA currently pay £300-400,000 a year to rent Hampden, plus they'll receive revenue from other sources such as functions etc plus concerts so why on earth would they accept a one of payment to have no say so on the future running of the place 

Are they now maybe trying to bargain for a cheaper deal at Murrayfield?

I smell bullshite

On the face of it, it would seem crazy for QPFC to accept.  However the SFA know full well that without their £800k pa rent money coming in, QPFC cannot hope to maintain Hampden and it will quickly become a massive stone around their neck.  The SFA also know that QPFC know this very well too.

A £2m offer to buy the place is about as good as QPFC may well be able to obtain in the circumstances and some sort of sweetener to help them play at Lesser Hampden for example might be enough to encourage them to accept.

Maybe the SFA aren’t as stupid as we think, or am I giving them too much credit?

[Toepoke]

2 hours ago, Gala Tartan Army (Borders) said:

So you're saying the SFA spent the same money on ONE stand as it cost to rebuild the whole of Murrayfield, that's totally nuts !

 

To be fair it was Queen's Park who were in charge of the project, and they only need one stand.