Texas Pete Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 7 hours ago, er yir macaroon said: It will if the World Cup is coming to the UK, which it almost certainly is. Why wouldn’t they just use Ibrox or Celtic Park if Glasgow is one of the cities chosen to host games if they felt Hampden wasn’t up to scratch? Hampden is already an elite stadium anyway so if it is chosen to host World Cup games in future they would probably just give it a coat of paint and put some fresh urinal cakes in the bogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
er yir macaroon Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 7 hours ago, Texas Pete said: Why wouldn’t they just use Ibrox or Celtic Park if Glasgow is one of the cities chosen to host games if they felt Hampden wasn’t up to scratch? Hampden is already an elite stadium anyway so if it is chosen to host World Cup games in future they would probably just give it a coat of paint and put some fresh urinal cakes in the bogs. No chance they wouldn’t use Hampden and they’d get a tonne of cash to upgrade it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 17 hours ago, er yir macaroon said: It will if the World Cup is coming to the UK, which it almost certainly is. That is a long, long way off with many potential obstacles in the way. Obstacles such as will a bid actually be put in? Will it actually incorporate Scotland in the bid or will it be an exclusive England bid? If a three-way bid will it be successful? What part would Hampden be a part of it? Anyway, whatever happens, I would say it is now a nailed on cert Scotland will remain at Hampden Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Pete Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, er yir macaroon said: No chance they wouldn’t use Hampden and they’d get a tonne of cash to upgrade it. Would they? Why? Hampden is classed as one of the best stadiums in Europe. It’s ranked around 12 or 13 in UEFA’s elite list or category 4 list or whatever it’s called now so I would imagine any work carried out would be superficial and/or cosmetic. Ok so the stadium categories are a lot of nonsense as they are based on things like number of turnstiles and photographers areas and things that have nothing to do with the match experience but Hampden ticks every box as far as hosting a European Chanpionship or World Cup match is concerned. It’s already hosting 3 European Championship matches in 2 years. How much work was done/will be done on the stadium to make it suitable for Euro 2020? New screens? That’s about all as far as I can tell. There’s also the issue of Scotland potentially being excluded from any World Cup bid due to our no alcohol at football games laws which FIFA are not big fans of but that’s for another thread I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceudmilefailte Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 On 6/16/2018 at 12:04 PM, Texas Pete said: There’s also the issue of Scotland potentially being excluded from any World Cup bid due to our no alcohol at football games laws which FIFA are not big fans of but that’s for another thread I suppose. So whats the script with alcohol at games in the rest of Europe, apart from one or two powder keg games don't really see the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Russell's Lovechild Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 On 6/16/2018 at 12:03 PM, Caledonian Craig said: That is a long, long way off with many potential obstacles in the way. Obstacles such as will a bid actually be put in? Will it actually incorporate Scotland in the bid or will it be an exclusive England bid? If a three-way bid will it be successful? What part would Hampden be a part of it? Anyway, whatever happens, I would say it is now a nailed on cert Scotland will remain at Hampden Park. On the radio the other day, Uefa president said if England's bid included the other home nations, getting the WC would almost be a certainty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoonTheSlope Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 Hampden is the only stadium fit to host European finals because when the team coaches arrived at the stadium the players don’t have to go outside to enter the players tunnel area if that makes sense. At Ibrox and Parkhead the players are in contact with the public when leaving the team bus What rating this grants it I don’t know and particularly care if truth be told but Hampden will not be redeveloped as it is currently fit for purpose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 6/24/2018 at 4:07 PM, DoonTheSlope said: Hampden is the only stadium fit to host European finals because when the team coaches arrived at the stadium the players don’t have to go outside to enter the players tunnel area if that makes sense. At Ibrox and Parkhead the players are in contact with the public when leaving the team bus What rating this grants it I don’t know and particularly care if truth be told but Hampden will not be redeveloped as it is currently fit for purpose Precisely. Hampden was at the point of falling apart before it was rebuilt with money spent on it. Now the stadium is nowhere near that stage so cannot see anything major getting done to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Pete Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 On 6/21/2018 at 3:28 PM, ceudmilefailte said: So whats the script with alcohol at games in the rest of Europe, apart from one or two powder keg games don't really see the point. Not sure what you mean mate. You can drink at football games in most European countries, including England. UEFA run tournaments such as the champion’s league and European Championship qualifiers don’t allow booze in stadiums but FIFA ones do so you can get a beer at a World Cup qualifier or finals match in most countries. I’m pretty sure Brazil had to change their law temporarily as they don’t allow swally at football matches but FIFA basically told them if they didn’t sell Budweiser during matches they weren’t getting the World Cup. I’m sure the Scottish government would do something similar as they would be daft to lose out on co-hosting such a massive event but the police might not be too keen on the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoonTheSlope Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 On 6/21/2018 at 3:28 PM, ceudmilefailte said: So whats the script with alcohol at games in the rest of Europe, apart from one or two powder keg games don't really see the point. If you can’t go a couple of hours without a drink then it’s not the fitba’ you should be going to, it’s the Betty Ford clinic you want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceudmilefailte Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, DoonTheSlope said: If you can’t go a couple of hours without a drink then it’s not the fitba’ you should be going to, it’s the Betty Ford clinic you want That wasn't the point, just asked to see if the rest of the world was regarded as more "grown up" than us by their respective governing bodies and governments, it appears so. Personally don't drink before or after games but a nice glass of red wine to compliment my half time pie would be nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksburnDandy Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 As much as it pains me to put up a link to this particular paper, Stephen McGowan seems to be the leading journalist with this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5984237/Murrayfield-cost-Scottish-FA-twice-Hampden.html If the deal stays as it is then Hampden is cheaper. However the SFA have demanded QP sell up, else they will leave for Murrayfield. Some board members are for Murrayfield to avoid maintenance costs and use bigger capacity most likely for Old Firm games. For me, as it stands I don't like either stadium particularly. Murrayfield was dreadful for football with a shallow rake behind the goals in the lower tier and vast expanses of grass meaning it was hard to see the action. Hampden has similar faults behind the goals too. Both as it stands are poor options for spectators. However I look at the Welsh example. They moved to a rugby stadium and left within 10 years. Their example is one we should be very wary of. As much as having the national stadium in the capital is a normal thing, I don't feel Murrayfield is an attractive option. As previously mentioned it is poor for football fans, parking is grim and it is not going to be a big improvement to an already poor experience. Ideally we would rebuild Hampden or do what the Irish did with building the Aviva making it fit to host both sports, in a central location in the capital. What is everyone's thoughts on the above link and the best way forward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Did the Hampden Museum tour on Sunday, and way guide was talking, SFA will be buying Hampden and there will be a answer very soon. SFA want Hampden at a cut price deal, and as long as the Murrayfield question is in the air, that is something they can use when trying to broker a deal with Queens Park. I fully expect the SFA will purchase Hampden with the short term view to make it start making some serious money for them (naming rights, renting out office space, selling off land from the car park etc etc etc), with the long term view redevelopment, but that will be many years away and I suspect they will be looking for the Scottish Government and (mainly) Glasgow City Council to foot any bills for remedial work that needs done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksburnDandy Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Some articles from Dominic McKay's interview in the morning papers: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/rugby-will-always-have-first-dibs-on-murrayfield-says-sru-boss-1-4787679 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16590152.the-srus-pursuit-of-international-football-for-murrayfield-has-been-generations-in-the-making/ https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/3099602/sfa-hampden-murrayfield-dominic-mckay-40m-scottish-football-scottish-rugby-chief/ Sadly, the longer this goes on, the more I think the SFA will move to Murrayfield. The SRU have clearly put together a strong case and with the problems of buying and maintaining Hampden, I can easily see the SFA just deciding to go to Murrayfield for less hassle than rebuilding and maintaining Hampden. Wouldn't be my choice but I can see why some members of the SFA board favour it. For me, we would be the poor relation to rugby and the stadium just isn't all that, a lack of indoor facilities, poor sight lines in the lower tiers and 3 stands still a long way from the pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis_trap Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said: Some articles from Dominic McKay's interview in the morning papers: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/rugby-will-always-have-first-dibs-on-murrayfield-says-sru-boss-1-4787679 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16590152.the-srus-pursuit-of-international-football-for-murrayfield-has-been-generations-in-the-making/ https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/3099602/sfa-hampden-murrayfield-dominic-mckay-40m-scottish-football-scottish-rugby-chief/ Sadly, the longer this goes on, the more I think the SFA will move to Murrayfield. The SRU have clearly put together a strong case and with the problems of buying and maintaining Hampden, I can easily see the SFA just deciding to go to Murrayfield for less hassle than rebuilding and maintaining Hampden. Wouldn't be my choice but I can see why some members of the SFA board favour it. For me, we would be the poor relation to rugby and the stadium just isn't all that, a lack of indoor facilities, poor sight lines in the lower tiers and 3 stands still a long way from the pitch. IMHO the SFA using murrayfield as a stick / threat to force Queens Park into selling up.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said: Some articles from Dominic McKay's interview in the morning papers: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/rugby-will-always-have-first-dibs-on-murrayfield-says-sru-boss-1-4787679 http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16590152.the-srus-pursuit-of-international-football-for-murrayfield-has-been-generations-in-the-making/ https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/3099602/sfa-hampden-murrayfield-dominic-mckay-40m-scottish-football-scottish-rugby-chief/ Sadly, the longer this goes on, the more I think the SFA will move to Murrayfield. The SRU have clearly put together a strong case and with the problems of buying and maintaining Hampden, I can easily see the SFA just deciding to go to Murrayfield for less hassle than rebuilding and maintaining Hampden. Wouldn't be my choice but I can see why some members of the SFA board favour it. For me, we would be the poor relation to rugby and the stadium just isn't all that, a lack of indoor facilities, poor sight lines in the lower tiers and 3 stands still a long way from the pitch. Would not look to much into those articles, SRU trying to sell their case as they know its easy money having the SFA on board at Murrayfield. Granted, a large portion of the media want Murrayfield (hence people like Dominic McKay getting so much media attention), but I suspect very little of the SFA board are up on the idea, but keeping quiet just now to keep Queens Park sweating that little bit longer to get Hampden for a steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksburnDandy Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said: IMHO the SFA using murrayfield as a stick / threat to force Queens Park into selling up.... That's what they are trying to do but QP standing hard on £6 million and the SFA only willing to cough up £2 million. Longer that stand off continues, the closer we get to moving to Murrayfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said: That's what they are trying to do but QP standing hard on £6 million and the SFA only willing to cough up £2 million. Longer that stand off continues, the closer we get to moving to Murrayfield. Queens Park are looking for guarantees more than anything (ie not kicked out on the streets after a season, or forced to play at Lesser Hampden full time), and as soon as real talks start, pretty sure they will be talked down from that price. Can see it being a case of SFA and Queens agreeing on something closer to the £4m mark, with a life-time free residency for Queens that they get to play there and keep match match day revenue from their own use of the stadium, with a permanent seat for one director on the Hampden PLC board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
er yir macaroon Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, wanderer said: Queens Park are looking for guarantees more than anything (ie not kicked out on the streets after a season, or forced to play at Lesser Hampden full time), and as soon as real talks start, pretty sure they will be talked down from that price. Can see it being a case of SFA and Queens agreeing on something closer to the £4m mark, with a life-time free residency for Queens that they get to play there and keep match match day revenue from their own use of the stadium, with a permanent seat for one director on the Hampden PLC board. If they sell they shouldn’t be allowed to play there routinely, unless drawn against the bigger teams in Cups. They should play at Lesser Hampden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said: If they sell they shouldn’t be allowed to play there routinely, unless drawn against the bigger teams in Cups. They should play at Lesser Hampden. I think this where some middle ground will need to be found, SFA want it for the cheapest price possible, Queens Park want the best deal for them (not necessarily a money deal, just more assurances that they can continue to play at what has been their home for last 100 odd years). I do not think its any skin off the SFA noise if they are seen to be offering Queens Park these terms, as they simply want to own the stadium out right and do what they want with it, without Queens moaning in their ear over what they can and can not do (SRU got £20m for the naming rights to Murrayfield, sure SFA have feelers out already for a similar deal once this whole thing is sorted). Edited August 22, 2018 by wanderer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 Announcement to be made on Wednesday... https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-decision-hampden-cant-based-13141357 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 It’s going to be Hampden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Id be amazed if it was anything but Hampden. Murrayfield is a far superior stadium, but the SFA wont move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 13 hours ago, kumnio said: Id be amazed if it was anything but Hampden. Murrayfield is a far superior stadium, but the SFA wont move. Its a large portion of the media who are all for Murrayfield, yet both the SFA and Queens Park are very quiet on this subject (Queens Park chairman could not keep his mouth shut for ages whenever something bad about Hampden was said by the SFA, yet hardly been a peep out of him for most the summer, and was a just days away from D-Day), which says to me a deal in principal has been agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 16 hours ago, kumnio said: Murrayfield is a far superior stadium, I don't really think it is. The view behind the goals is utter pish. 16 hours ago, kumnio said: but the SFA wont move. Quite rightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.