Charlie Endell Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 For me it would feel strange moving our football home to somewhere other than Glasgow. That said murryfield certainly looks a better stadium. Not been since ITE redevelopment so can only go by how it looks on TV. If the SFA and SRU had any sense between they would build a stadium in partnership that could be viewed as a centre for sport. Not sure where would be best to build it but it would have to have decent train stations nearby to hopefully reduce the mnt Florida scrum at the end of games.Just walk to Cathcart, King's Park, Crosshill, Queen's Park or Crossmyloof instead of queueing at Mount Florida - all within 10 / 15 minute walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Chaz 'Eskimo' Endell is correct. There must be some weird South Side fog that descends on people once they venture into it. Oh no I am lost, there is only one bus stop, a train passes every other week... It is amazingly well connected but you have to know a little about the local area to navigate to the numerous train stations all within a 15 m walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 hampden isnt fit for purpose, knock it to the ground and get the germans over to design and build it. Are they gonna pay for it too?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hampden is home. knock it down and rebuild aye but dont move us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BremnerLorimerGray Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) As far as I'm aware, there isn't a great deal of scope to do much with Hampden. The money certainly isn't available for wholesale changes such as ripping it down and starting again. If the two of them(there is no chance of that as they are both as useless as each other) could agree to some sort of joint ownership venture at Murrayfield, with the necessary changes made to make it more accessible for football without disrupting the rugby side of things too greatly then I would be all for it. Murrayfield is a better stadium than Hampden. Edited January 27, 2015 by BremnerLorimerGray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtag Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's a short distance from the M74, there are six railway stations within a 10 / 15 walk and umpteen pubs / cafés / restaurants in Shawlands, Vicky Road, Strathbungo and Aikenhead Road - I always struggle to see what folk are complaining about - the fact that I can walk home does not of course in any way influence my take on Hampden. I've laughed at these quotes for years. Same old crap gets posted every time this is brought up. As someone who goes to both football and rugby internationals I have never found it any easier getting to and from Murrayfield than Hampden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac1 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 People talk about the distance from the pitch when behind the goals at Hampden. It is the same at Murrayfield if not worse. Also there is nothing wrong with Hampden as a stadium other than the West and East stands could be closer to the pitch. The same problem Murrayfield would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langtonian Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The national stadium should be in the capital like most civilised countries end of. this along with the majority of scotland supporters come from the east coast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewisEDI Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 this along with the majority of scotland supporters come from the east coast i reckon we could add 5-10k on attendances if the games were in Edinburgh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 As much as I would prefer games in Edinburgh than the Weege, Hampden is where we should play. Murrayfield has a shitey running track down one side, and dont believe the hype, the atmosphere isnt actually that good. Re scope for development of Hampden, surely if knocking it down and starting again, you could turn it 90 degrees? That way you could have huge stands running both sides with smaller ones at each goal end/or simply bring everything closer to the pitch as it stands at the moment and have two Holte end style stands behind the goals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Re scope for development of Hampden, surely if knocking it down and starting again, you could turn it 90 degrees? That way you could have huge stands running both sides with smaller ones at each goal end/or simply bring everything closer to the pitch as it stands at the moment and have two Holte end style stands behind the goals? And who pays for this? Scottish Government? Not much chance UK Government? Even less chance SFA? Take on a massive debt that will take decades to pay off and send Scottish football back into the dark ages with one swoop.... Its a nothing story to start with.... SFA are just playing funny buggers to get a better deal on their lease towards Hampden when it is up for renewal in a few years time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Murrayfield is a much better stadium and holds 15,000 more fans so, in a normal World would be the national stadium, for football and Rugby. The SFA will, however, never allow their wee fiefdom to be moved from Glasgow where they rent the stadium from Queens Park Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peever1745 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Edinburgh for home games is a yes from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac1 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This is really a nothing story anyway. There is no chance whatsoever that they will ever leave Hampden. Talking about options is just a way of pre-negotiating the next deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewisEDI Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This is really a nothing story anyway. There is no chance whatsoever that they will ever leave Hampden. Talking about options is just a way of pre-negotiating the next deal. yep and fat chance of it getting rebuilt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macy37 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 And who pays for this? Scottish Government? Not much chance UK Government? Even less chance SFA? Take on a massive debt that will take decades to pay off and send Scottish football back into the dark ages with one swoop.... Its a nothing story to start with.... SFA are just playing funny buggers to get a better deal on their lease towards Hampden when it is up for renewal in a few years time Back into the dark ages? I wasn't aware we had ever come out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robroysboy Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Nothing wrong with the area round hampden I live there. And there are umpteen buses and a train link to hampden, what else can we use for transport, it is the local government that don't organise extra services, which is a disgrace. Glasgow is the home of football and that's where we should stay. Spot on Andy, for the common wealth games they put on trains direct from Hamilton to atrain station next to Hampden ( could have been mount florida). Do they provide this service when Scotland are playing? Edited January 27, 2015 by Robroysboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Considering almost no one in Scotland plays or more importantly watches Rugby versus the popular interest in football why is it again that we have a gleaming almost new rugby stadium in the arse end of nowhere that is unsurprisingly underutilized (they are saying it themselves) while we also have a creaking national football stadium that has been an old banger for decades with more facelifts than Micheal Jackson (chamone). edit; reading between the lines the SRU sound desperate, so let's starve the No voting khunts of money, send them to the bottom and pick up Murrayfield on the cheap when they go into liquidation. Then move it brick by brick to Glasgow. Ummmm... Murrayfield was rebuilt in 1995. Hampden in 1999. So Hampden is newer. And the SFA was a real ball of nationalist fervour right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Murrayfield is a much better stadium and holds 15,000 more fans so, in a normal World would be the national stadium, for football and Rugby. The SFA will, however, never allow their wee fiefdom to be moved from Glasgow where they rent the stadium from Queens Park Neither they should. Glasgow is the home of the national side and has been since the 19th Century. If Edinburgh folk had been interested in football the SFA would have been founded there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 SRU aren't desperate for cash either. The BT deal they signed will wipe out their debt (for the first time since Murrayfield was rebuilt). Dodson's just saying it's there as an option if they want to use it. Murrayfield now has somewhere in the region of 25 rugby matches a year played there now, which is more than Hampden has, but it has a modern hybrid pitch which means it can cope with increased use. The rebuild of Murrayfield was obviously done much better than Hampden, as it still looks and feels like a new stadium, whereas Hampden feels like it's ageing. As someone else said earlier in the thread, the thing that ties the SFA to Hampden is the lack of grounds in the 30-40,000 bracket. a couple of those and it'd be better rotating games around Scotland, with Ibrox, Celtic Park, Murrayfield all being used for big games. But no doubt there are a few out there whose heads would explode if a big game was ever played away from Glasgow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Back into the dark ages? I wasn't aware we had ever come out of them. Basically the SFA will have a massive bill to pay off, which basically means cuts.... which will result in coaches being let go at all levels, having to really scrape the bottom of the barrel for a national team coach, less money going into youth development, possibly ticket and SSC prices going up with even less in return etc etc etc etc........ SRU have only just paid off Murrayfield, yet are decades behind most other nations as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Playing a Hearts / Hibs final at hampden when murrayfield was available was an absolute disgrace and summed up the small minded mentality that goes with football in this country and the people running the game. as usual the fans came last well behind the needs of the bloated and ineffectual adsministrators of the game. consequently any hope of them ever using murrayfield or any stadium outside of glasgow regularly for scotland games is a pipe dream. Murrayfiled is a far better quality of stadium, the view form everywhere is superb and atmosphere wise, filled with 60,000 scotland supporters I am sure it would be bearable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDABBYDOZZY Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Playing a Hearts / Hibs final at hampden when murrayfield was available was an absolute disgrace and summed up the small minded mentality that goes with football in this country and the people running the game. as usual the fans came last well behind the needs of the bloated and ineffectual adsministrators of the game. I thought Hampden was Hearts and Hibs preference for that game?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewisEDI Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I thought Hampden was Hearts and Hibs preference for that game?... fenlon at least said he wanted it played there as it was the national stadium. there was a lot of talk about the semi getting played there in 2006 but mowbray shot that down straight away as hearts had been playing european games there. 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.