"UK and Ireland" Euro 2028 bid - Hampden Park

[AlfieMoon]

42 minutes ago, Scots_Wha_Hae said:

This idea will die a death as soon as the English say they get one of the host places regardless (and tbf 90%+ of the matches are in England anyway).

Would happily give england a place as they are essentially the hosts. 
 

If there’s any competition to decide another place, it shouldn’t be made to be any more drawn out than the Nations League play-off approach.  

 

4 teams drawn into 2 semi finals, with winners advancing to a final. Would be happy for the matches to be played in neutral venues in England to ensure 50/50 split of tickets. 

 

[vanderark14]

30 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Would happily give england a place as they are essentially the hosts. 
 

If there’s any competition to decide another place, it shouldn’t be made to be any more drawn out than the Nations League play-off approach.  

 

4 teams drawn into 2 semi finals, with winners advancing to a final. Would be happy for the matches to be played in neutral venues in England to ensure 50/50 split of tickets. 

 

No fucking way would I accept that. IF England are handed one automatic spot, the SFA should pull out immediately. I am already annoyed that the SFA attached themselves to this nonsense but giving england the host spot would be a step too far. 

 

[AlfieMoon]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

No fucking way would I accept that. IF England are handed one automatic spot, the SFA should pull out immediately. I am already annoyed that the SFA attached themselves to this nonsense but giving england the host spot would be a step too far. 

 

Yep, I get the point and don’t imagine it can happen that way in the interests of equality.  
 

My own preference would be that England just hosted the whole damn thing as others have said.

[JECK]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

No fucking way would I accept that. IF England are handed one automatic spot, the SFA should pull out immediately. I am already annoyed that the SFA attached themselves to this nonsense but giving england the host spot would be a step too far. 

 

Whole thing is fast becoming a joke. Give the lot to England. 

[scotlad]

6 hours ago, AlfieMoon said:

Yep, I get the point and don’t imagine it can happen that way in the interests of equality.  
 

My own preference would be that England just hosted the whole damn thing as others have said.

I think that's how it'll end up. Now all the other bidders have pulled out, the Jocks, Paddies and Taffs - who were brought on board for hauners when the going looked tougher - will be get ditched and England will do what they wanted to all along and host the thing themselves.

[AlfieMoon]

1 hour ago, scotlad said:

I think that's how it'll end up. Now all the other bidders have pulled out, the Jocks, Paddies and Taffs - who were brought on board for hauners when the going looked tougher - will be get ditched and England will do what they wanted to all along and host the thing themselves.

I’m not so sure. I think a huge part of this UK Bid is politically motivated.  Post-Brexit Britain and all that - also putting out an olive branch to ROI. 
 

I think UK Gov will be determined to have a ‘4 nations approach’ (plus ROI) - even if it is token gestures to everyone outside England. 

[Grim Jim]

Not fekkin' interested.

SFA will be though, and will sell our souls for some sponsored crisps, and new padding for the corporate seats.

 

[Bzzzz]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:33 AM, Scots_Wha_Hae said:

It is all about the money - but not in the way I think you mean. The reason we are getting all these multi-country bids is the perceived economic benefit of hosting these tournaments has declined markedly in recent years. If we discount Qatar which was a massive anomaly in terms of the cost of hosting (they spent over $200bn!) then the cost of hosting a WC as an example is around $10-20bn, probably at the higher end for a country like the UK (the last couple of 'normal' tournaments were Brazil 2014 at $20bn and Russia 2018 at $16bn). This outlay was historically balanced by the expectation that the additional tourist visits and the boom in construction to build the infrastructure would essentially pay for the hosting cost and perhaps even turn a 'profit'. In actual fact what has been found is that visitor numbers actually drop - during the London Olympics for instance visitor numbers decreased markedly, the same in Beijing. Significant tourist attractions saw their visitor numbers fall by more than 20% in these major tournament years. In addition, the legacy of stadiums as significant infrastructure projects is challenging to say the least. Even in a global city like London, the Olympic stadium essentially had to be given away (West Ham paid around £15m for a £700m stadium) after the event as the demand for it was so low. So what do hosts actually get for their huge expenditure on these events? A bit of soft power and a chance to put their country on the TV of every house on the globe - that is definitely worth something but the value is diminishing compared to the cost. 

All of this considered, you still get the soft power and the publicity if you split the cost between two or three countries. You still get the jobs-boom from infrastructure development during the construction period but you are left with fewer white elephants. You also get a more sustainable number of visitors who detract less from the traditional tourist sector in your major tourist centers.

All this is very difficult to write about though as the level of available sources of information on it are pretty sparse. It's a pretty long winded way of saying I don't think the move to multi-country bids is an attempt by either FIFA/Uefa/whomever to money-grab, nor is it the same from the host countries, I think it is simply drawn from a growing realisation that spending billions of pounds on stadiums for a month of use is economically unjustifiable especially in times of economic hardship.

Going to have to report this post for being far too informative, reasoned and well written. Think yer in the wrong forum fella! 

Seriously, really interesting, thanks, not looked at it from that angle (obviously) and it's easy to jump to conclusions especially if you are a conclusionist like myself lol. 

Excellent input fella cheers! 

[Bzzzz]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:39 AM, AlfieMoon said:

Would happily give england a place as they are essentially the hosts. 
 

If there’s any competition to decide another place, it shouldn’t be made to be any more drawn out than the Nations League play-off approach.  

 

4 teams drawn into 2 semi finals, with winners advancing to a final. Would be happy for the matches to be played in neutral venues in England to ensure 50/50 split of tickets. 

 

Not interested in given them ANYTHING at our expense. Not a chance, THIS is why I don't want us anywhere near this bid, we'll just get shat on as we do already by all things "Greater England" does. 

[Scots_Wha_Hae]

20 hours ago, Bzzzz said:

Going to have to report this post for being far too informative, reasoned and well written. Think yer in the wrong forum fella! 

Seriously, really interesting, thanks, not looked at it from that angle (obviously) and it's easy to jump to conclusions especially if you are a conclusionist like myself lol. 

Excellent input fella cheers! 

Haha thanks.

[kwhitelaw]

21 hours ago, Bzzzz said:

Not interested in given them ANYTHING at our expense. Not a chance, THIS is why I don't want us anywhere near this bid, we'll just get shat on as we do already by all things "Greater England" does. 

I'm of the same attitude.  The fact us, Wales and Ireland are even involved makes this whole thing politically motivated, as I think someone already suggested, a wee insulting post Brexit UK love-in with an bigger insulting token gesture to the Irish.  England hosted the Euro's themselves nearly 30 frigging years ago and their infrastructure has improved so why do they need us involved?  It stinks.

[saintsparky]

I've said right from the beginning, that the other home nations should only have got involved, if the English contribution was North and Midlands, and nowhere near London. The final should also have been Hampden or Dublin...

Wembley has just hosted a final and made an absolute bollocks of it!!

[Kirk]

On 4/15/2023 at 12:00 PM, slasher said:

Transport links aren’t exactly Hampdens strong suit are they? 
Anyway we missed the boat on a new stadium in the Thatcher years. We’re going to just keep in tarting up Hampden and having the same issues on repeat.

Hampden is completely fine to get to, 20 min walk from the city, multiple train stations within 15/20 min walk, 10 mins from the bars on the southside. Easy enough motorway access too.

[Diamond Scot]

5 minutes ago, Kirk said:

Hampden is completely fine to get to, 20 min walk from the city, multiple train stations within 15/20 min walk, 10 mins from the bars on the southside. Easy enough motorway access too.

Part of the problem with Hampden is lack of information. You are correct in what you say but how many ppl actually know that. 

You see ppl lining up at the train station for 45 mins after a match when theres at least 2 other stations within 5 min walk. 

Loads of my mates drive from the East and always used to come in via the M8 and M77, totally unaware that they could take earlier exits from the M8 that would avoid most of the normal traffic.

[Kirk]

2 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Part of the problem with Hampden is lack of information. You are correct in what you say but how many ppl actually know that. 

You see ppl lining up at the train station for 45 mins after a match when theres at least 2 other stations within 5 min walk. 

Loads of my mates drive from the East and always used to come in via the M8 and M77, totally unaware that they could take earlier exits from the M8 that would avoid most of the normal traffic.

That's to do with folk not researching I guess. Yeah maybe there could be some sort of travel info type thing put out with emails etc. The train thing baffles me. We always walked down to cathcart and got straight on if we were going into town after. My dad parked down that way so I'd walk him back to the car then jump on the train. Even crossmyloof is maybe 20 mins max. Plus hillhead (I think) like 5 mins way

[Orraloon]

14 hours ago, Kirk said:

That's to do with folk not researching I guess. Yeah maybe there could be some sort of travel info type thing put out with emails etc. The train thing baffles me. We always walked down to cathcart and got straight on if we were going into town after. My dad parked down that way so I'd walk him back to the car then jump on the train. Even crossmyloof is maybe 20 mins max. Plus hillhead (I think) like 5 mins way

Hillhead is on Byres road. Are you thinking of Crosshill?

[Kirk]

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Hillhead is on Byres road. Are you thinking of Crosshill?

That's the one, I knew hillhead was the underground but also knew it had hill in it 😂😂 then thought maybe there's 2 hillheads

[Marky]

On 8/11/2023 at 8:34 PM, Kirk said:

Hampden is completely fine to get to, 20 min walk from the city, multiple train stations within 15/20 min walk, 10 mins from the bars on the southside. Easy enough motorway access too.

Feckin hell!!

I consider myself to be a pretty quick walker, but I wouldnae want to try to keep up wi you if you can walk from Hampden to the City Centre in 20 minutes! 😳🤣

[Orraloon]

8 minutes ago, Marky said:

Feckin hell!!

I consider myself to be a pretty quick walker, but I wouldnae want to try to keep up wi you if you can walk from Hampden to the City Centre in 20 minutes! 😳🤣

Kip Keino would struggle to keep up with that pace. 🤣

[Kirk]

6 hours ago, Marky said:

Feckin hell!!

I consider myself to be a pretty quick walker, but I wouldnae want to try to keep up wi you if you can walk from Hampden to the City Centre in 20 minutes! 😳🤣

Haha may have exaggerated that but the point stands it's easily walkable.

[Marky]

On 8/27/2023 at 3:50 PM, Kirk said:

Haha may have exaggerated that but the point stands it's easily walkable.

Aye walked it many a time if it’s dry.

Google maps has Hampden to Renfield Street as 1 hour. That’s a bit slow. Reckon I could do it in 40/45 minutes if I got a shift on. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Marky

[Kirk]

1 hour ago, Marky said:

Aye walked it many a time if it’s dry.

Google maps has Hampden to Renfield Street as 1 hour. That’s a bit slow. Reckon I could do it in 40/45 minutes if I got a shift on. 

Aye I did Google it too 😂

 

Definitely 40/45 seems fair with a few beers and a bounce in your step

[Rich NATA]

20 minutes? 40 minutes?

I cannot see how that can be possible and I'm a fast walker.

[Bzzzz]

1 hour ago, Rich NATA said:

20 minutes? 40 minutes?

I cannot see how that can be possible and I'm a fast walker.

Agreed, I'd say an hour, or even 2 given there's always a pub on the way... 

[Rich NATA]

18 minutes ago, Bzzzz said:

Agreed, I'd say an hour, or even 2 given there's always a pub on the way... 

I've never done it in one go. Always got half-way (30 mins) and thought, f*ck this, before veering off for a pint.