The final World Cup game at Hampden? - Page 15 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The final World Cup game at Hampden?


Toepoke

Recommended Posts

Just now, Lion Rampant said:

No, this option isn't feasible which is why the SFA have discounted it already.

I generally find that the people talking about this as an opton have no clue about the Supporter's Club and the guarantees that the members have with regards to home tickets.

Kenny Miller, Steven Naismith and Stephen McManus all on sportsound last night wanted the idea of lesser qualifiers at these grounds 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

If I was forced to make a decision, it would be a refurbished hampden with steeper stands closer to the pitch. One stadium I wouldn't use as a model is wembley, its pish for fitba. Great for boxing events and concerts but its a crap fitba stadium.

If the choice is hampden in its current state or Murrayfield, I would chose Murrayfield just because I prefer where murrayfield is and the set up in terms of fan zone is great. 

 

It was the hot topic on sportsound, each of the panel wanted to stay at hampden which is no real surprise. They made some good points about the scheduling being a problem for atmosphere. Saturday afternoon games are often rocking at hampden regardless of opposition.  Lithuania was used as an example, I remember a saturday afternoon match against Lithuania, we won 2-0, I'm sure Darren Fletcher scored but play Lithuania on a tuesday night and its shite. 

I've heard a ffew people mention tynecastle, easter road and pittodrie for these lesser qualifiers, is that even possible? Would these grounds cover the amount of supporters club members who are guaranteed a ticket or have a season ticket. this option doesn't seem feasible to me. 

Wembley is easily one of the best new built stadiums in the world. Anytime I've been there, the atmosphere has been excellent and everywhere I've sat the view has been great. I was there for a league one play off final between Yeovil and Brentford when it was half full and the champions league final between Bayern and Dortmund which was full to the gunnels and the atmosphere on both occasions was brilliant. Its a stadium that works so well at keeping the noise inside the stadium which is the opposite of Hampden. We could do a lot worse than look at Wembley stadium design, it's a fantastic stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lion Rampant said:

Delaying this makes me even more convinced that they are giving Queens Park another chance to bring their asking price down.

This is all that the entire exercise has ever been about. The SFA have no intention to move, they're just trying to squeeze Queens Park and Glasgow City Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lion Rampant said:

No, this option isn't feasible which is why the SFA have discounted it already.

I generally find that the people talking about this as an opton have no clue about the Supporter's Club and the guarantees that the members have with regards to home tickets.

Forget the guarantees, use a points system for the home games too🤐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usual SFA result. They'll be trying to milk Queen's Park to drop their asking price for the already low cost of the stadium. The opportunity for any development was there after the Commonwealth Games - if it involves spending money, the SFA won't be interested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

If I was forced to make a decision, it would be a refurbished hampden with steeper stands closer to the pitch. One stadium I wouldn't use as a model is wembley, its pish for fitba. Great for boxing events and concerts but its a crap fitba stadium.

If the choice is hampden in its current state or Murrayfield, I would chose Murrayfield just because I prefer where murrayfield is and the set up in terms of fan zone is great. 

 

It was the hot topic on sportsound, each of the panel wanted to stay at hampden which is no real surprise. They made some good points about the scheduling being a problem for atmosphere. Saturday afternoon games are often rocking at hampden regardless of opposition.  Lithuania was used as an example, I remember a saturday afternoon match against Lithuania, we won 2-0, I'm sure Darren Fletcher scored but play Lithuania on a tuesday night and its shite. 

I've heard a ffew people mention tynecastle, easter road and pittodrie for these lesser qualifiers, is that even possible? Would these grounds cover the amount of supporters club members who are guaranteed a ticket or have a season ticket. this option doesn't seem feasible to me. 

Have you ever actually been to Wembley? It’s a fantastic stadium. 

Possibly a wee bit too big in all honesty so not every seat has a great view. That shape of stadium designed for 55,000 would be amazing for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Forget the guarantees, use a points system for the home games too🤐

 

6 hours ago, Lion Rampant said:

Yep, no clue 🤣

Supporters club members are no longer guaranteed a ticket for home games so there is nothing to stop them playing qualifiers or NL games at smaller grounds.  

If the SFA buy Hampden then I doubt any games will be played away from there as the SFA will want to keep 100% of the revenue for themselves. 

If we start renting Murrayfield then the SRU will probably expect all games to be played there. Obviously this will depend on the contract both parties agree on. 

15,000 on a wet Monday November night against Moldova or somebody like that in a 67,000 seater stadium would be ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

Have you ever actually been to Wembley? It’s a fantastic stadium. 

Possibly a wee bit too big in all honesty so not every seat has a great view. That shape of stadium designed for 55,000 would be amazing for us. 

7 times

3 for football, 2 for boxing (soon to be a 3rd) and once for  concert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone else has said this already but if the intention of the SFA is 100% committed to refurbishing Hampden then absolutely they should stay put as long as talk of downsizing Hampden to around 35,000 (like I read somewhere) does not talk happen. If no refurbishment is planned I'd probably still favour staying at a Hampden owned by the SFA but with a deal in place to play big matches at Murrayfield should we need it for key qualifiers with high ticket demand but I am not sure if that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have mentioned Wembley...

Considering what it cost and the fact it is almost brand new, Wembley is flawed.

The lower tier is too shallow and there is  an uneccessary amount of space between the pitch and the fans.

Not even taking the roof into account, Cardiff is a better stadium than Wembley; a far better experience for watching a match.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I think someone else has said this already but if the intention of the SFA is 100% committed to refurbishing Hampden then absolutely they should stay put as long as talk of downsizing Hampden to around 35,000 (like I read somewhere) does not talk happen. If no refurbishment is planned I'd probably still favour staying at a Hampden owned by the SFA but with a deal in place to play big matches at Murrayfield should we need it for key qualifiers with high ticket demand but I am not sure if that is possible.

I heard Michael Stewart talking about reducing the capacity but he has a time share agreement with a brain cell with Kris Boyd. 

Hampden could be greatly improved without reducing the capacity but the problem is (as I’m sure we’ve discussed before, Craig) it would cost tens of millions of pounds to do. Even with some corporate sponsorship and naming rights etc. I doubt enough money could be raised to fund what would be required.

The only benefit I can see of moving to Murrayfield is a bigger capacity for big games. This is also a negative as the stadium would be almost half empty for most matches. Murrayfield possibly has better transport links as well but I’m not sure they are significantly better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rich NATA said:

People have mentioned Wembley...

Considering what it cost and the fact it is almost brand new, Wembley is flawed.

The lower tier is too shallow and there is  an uneccessary amount of space between the pitch and the fans.

Not even taking the roof into account, Cardiff is a better stadium than Wembley; a far better experience for watching a match.

 

I mentioned Wembley earlier but I wasn’t suggesting we should build an exact replica of it. Wembley is a fantastic stadium but as you, and others, have pointed out, it’s not perfect. 

If we could get something approaching the shape of it, probably with 2 tiers all the way around with a capacity of around 55,000 then we would have an amazing stadium on our hands, although it probably still wouldn’t be perfect. 

Sadly it’s all pie in the sky anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

I heard Michael Stewart talking about reducing the capacity but he has a time share agreement with a brain cell with Kris Boyd. 

Hampden could be greatly improved without reducing the capacity but the problem is (as I’m sure we’ve discussed before, Craig) it would cost tens of millions of pounds to do. Even with some corporate sponsorship and naming rights etc. I doubt enough money could be raised to fund what would be required.

The only benefit I can see of moving to Murrayfield is a bigger capacity for big games. This is also a negative as the stadium would be almost half empty for most matches. Murrayfield possibly has better transport links as well but I’m not sure they are significantly better. 

Yes we have discussed it before and I agree. I do not see where s uff icient funds will come frombfor a refurb. I would say most definitely Murrayfield has better transport links. Trains through Haymarket will take you to Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness, Glasgow, Motherwell etc etc etc. At Hampden you need to get avtras in and then a walk to get you to Queen St if you are travelling to Northern cities in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Yes we have discussed it before and I agree. I do not see where s uff icient funds will come frombfor a refurb. I would say most definitely Murrayfield has better transport links. Trains through Haymarket will take you to Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Inverness, Glasgow, Motherwell etc etc etc. At Hampden you need to get avtras in and then a walk to get you to Queen St if you are travelling to Northern cities in Scotland.

The transport links are definitely better if you don’t mind the 20 minute walk from Haymarket. 

There are 3 train stations within a 5 minute walk of Hampden though, all of which are about a 10 minute journey from Glasgow Central so I’m not sure they are significantly better. You can also walk from Central to Hampden Park in about 45 minutes which isn’t too bad with a stop off for a pint on the way. This has been debated at length before as well I’m sure. 

It would just be good to get a decision one way or another I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rich NATA said:

People have mentioned Wembley...

Considering what it cost and the fact it is almost brand new, Wembley is flawed.

The lower tier is too shallow and there is  an uneccessary amount of space between the pitch and the fans.

Not even taking the roof into account, Cardiff is a better stadium than Wembley; a far better experience for watching a match.

 

Wembley is good but I dunno it feels a bit coporate to me (similar to Emirates with that awful middle tier who all come back five minutes after half time).

I agree with you, the Millenium/Principality is my idea of a national stadium, bang in the centre of Captial city and brilliant, steep stands. Only issue is problems with pitch but Hampden has also had this.

As I've said before you could actually get Hampden shaped into a similar stadium if you drop the pitch and then build seats on the track. That happened to the Man. City ground after the Commonwealth games in 2002.

I guess that is a little beyond the SFA's budget though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

7 times

3 for football, 2 for boxing (soon to be a 3rd) and once for  concert

 

What did you see on the 7th occasion?

I’ve been to Wembley quite a few times but only for football. Quite impressive due its size but I think that big middle tier for corporates spoils it a bit. I prefer the millennium in Cardiff and that stadium in Dortmund we’ve been to.

btw anybody know how I get rid of this fucking annoying Samsung ad taking up the bottom half of my phone screen?

Edited by Willie Miller's tache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tartan Chris said:

Wembley is good but I dunno it feels a bit coporate to me (similar to Emirates with that awful middle tier who all come back five minutes after half time).

I agree with you, the Millenium/Principality is my idea of a national stadium, bang in the centre of Captial city and brilliant, steep stands. Only issue is problems with pitch but Hampden has also had this.

As I've said before you could actually get Hampden shaped into a similar stadium if you drop the pitch and then build seats on the track. That happened to the Man. City ground after the Commonwealth games in 2002.

I guess that is a little beyond the SFA's budget though....

Cannae drop the pitch due to an apparent underground burn that runs below Hampden, and building up the way is out too due to the residential houses at the back of the north stand. 

Edited by McTeeko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, McTeeko said:

Cannae drop the pitch due to an apparent underground burn that runs below Hampden, and building up the way is out too due to the residential houses at the back of the north stand. 

They could probably divert the burn but that would probably put another few million on the cost. 

The south stand isn’t much higher than the rest of the stadium. If they demolished the east and west stands and rebuilt them to the same specs as the south stand but brought them closer to the pitch and left the north stand alone we would have a great stadium. 

Not sure if that’s feasible or how much it would cost but it’s what should have been done in the 90s. 

Edited by Texas Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

They could probably divert the burn but that would probably put another few million on the cost. 

The south stand isn’t much higher than the rest of the stadium. If they demolished the east and west stands and rebuilt them to the same specs as the south stand but brought them closer to the pitch and left the north stand alone we would have a great stadium. 

Not sure if that’s feasible or how much it would cost but it’s what should have been done in the 90s. 

That would probably take several 1000 off of the capacity though.

Saw this story a couple of weeks ago, might actually slightly raise the capacity...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6077007/amp/Hampden-create-safe-standing-areas-devastating-Murrayfield-avoided.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

That would probably take several 1000 off of the capacity though.

Saw this story a couple of weeks ago, might actually slightly raise the capacity...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6077007/amp/Hampden-create-safe-standing-areas-devastating-Murrayfield-avoided.html

 

If the east and west stands were tiered I can’t see it taking that many off the capacity. A stadium of 48,000 or so would do us fine. 

I don’t think the safe standing route would increase the capacity. You still need to keep the seats and can only admit the same amount of people than the number of seats. 

We also wouldn’t be able to use the safe standing for internationals unless there’s a rule change, which is a joke in itself since most people already stand in a few sections. 

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...