wembley67lisbon Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hampden is pish so Id be all in favour of moving our home games around depending on opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtag Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Hampden is pish so Id be all in favour of moving our home games around depending on opposition. I would take Hampden exactly as it is before I'd have a big soulless bowl like Wembley, The Milennium or Stade de France etc. Hampden has a soul and a feel about it that I wouldn't want to lose. Edited January 27, 2015 by Jagtag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 No Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albathebrave Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Yeah it is. It is like a little old lady's car. It is 20 years old but having been only used once a quarter it only has about 3 real years of use on the clock. Bargain. edit: Hampden by contrast is an ex (pish soaked) taxi that has been clocked more times than big ben. surely its wee old lady! apart from that you are spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I would take Hampden exactly as it is before I'd have a big soulless bowl like Wembley, The Milennium or Stade de France etc. Hampden has a soul and a feel about it that I wouldn't want to lose. I think hampden is a soulless shite hole, the old hampden had soul, that mess next to mount Florida is a terrible stadium, even the bloody Welsh and Irish have much better grounds than us. Ours is laughable! Unless the SFA magic up some money to improve it I'd be happy to see us move to murrayfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I think hampden is a soulless shite hole, the old hampden had soul, that mess next to mount Florida is a terrible stadium, even the bloody Welsh and Irish have much better grounds than us. Ours is laughable! Unless the SFA magic up some money to improve it I'd be happy to see us move to murrayfield. Really? I must admit I wasn't impressed with either the Millennium or Aviva. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Really? I must admit I wasn't impressed with either the Millennium or Aviva. Poland's new National Stadium, on the other hand........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Really? I must admit I wasn't impressed with either the Millennium or Aviva. Aviva when you actually see it in the flesh is very IKEA'ish I thought.... Millennium is good, but how much does its city centre location play in its reputation? If that was out in the scrubs think it would not be held in such high regard. Agree on Warsaw, it's one of the best I have ever been in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlowaylad93 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) In all honesty, I think this is turning into a Glasgow vs Edinburgh debate - lets just focus on our home stadium that happens to be in one of them. Murrayfield is a great venue, but it should be noted that it is the home of Scottish Rugby and I do not like the idea, after yesterday's comments from the SRU Chief Executive, of using the Scotland National Football Team to wipe off an £11m debt of another sport. Would Scottish Rugby do the same vice versa? That is their responsibility and not ours. Also, the SRU would in effect have the final say in what goes on at Murrayfield over the SFA. However, more importantly, I stress the importance of staying at Hampden for its fame in record-breaking attendances, hosting famous fixtures, one of which many regard as the greatest ever football match (1960 European Cup Final) and of course many famous memories from a Tartan Army perspective, like qualifying for the 74 World Cup, beating France 1-0 etc. Imagine, hosting the Euro 2020 matches then scrapping this famous stadium immediately afterwards? It wouldn't feel right. If the majority of supporters are for a move away, then that must be respected, but just think of the history that you would wipe away. Just like Liverpool leaving Anfield, which was proposed a few seasons ago but has since been scrapped: the story of Shankly and the Kop is an important part of that Club's history and to carelessly leave, or demolish, that stadium would be forgetting what made them famous to this day. I am for a revamped Hampden, even if it is to bring the stands closer to the goal ends of this famous ground. Hampden didn't get the funding it needed, whilst undergoing redevelopment, at a time when the Conservatives were in power at Westminster. I'm sure there are huge economic advantages and probably potential of having a revamped Hampden, even for hosting events other than football. The only regret about today's Hampden is that they didn't design a more compact ground with expansion options, whenever they got financial assistance to expand the ground as they wished. Poor design principles from the then SFA board and the architects. The Republic of Ireland, a country with a smaller population and tax revenue than Scotland, was able to contribute a quarter of funding towards the construction value of the new Landsdowne Road (Aviva Stadium), which can hold 51,000 spectators, even in difficult economic times, as well as Croke Park which has an even bigger capacity. Before I finish, the claim by the SRU Chief Executive that Scotland 'has too many' big stadiums is deceiving. Most clubs in Scotland today, respectively, built stadiums to a size they believe they can fill and would fill, if ticket prices were lower (that in itself is a different debate altogether). I do agree, however, that the smaller matches (friendlies) should go round the country, with other cities such as Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee etc. taking turns in hosting them, but for the big games (all the qualifiers) they should be played at the home of Scottish Football that is Hampden. Edited January 27, 2015 by carlowaylad93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Poland's new National Stadium, on the other hand........ Without doubt second best in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Poland's new National Stadium, on the other hand........ .....cost £400 million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 .....cost £400 million They should have got some Polish builders in to do it instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotts56 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hampden for me. Its home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I don't think much of Hampden at all. Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if we moved to Murrayfield. Better, bigger Stadium with more links and more pubs. Play big internationals and domestic games there, knock doon Hampden and build a 30k seater stadium and training facilities in Perth. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 .....cost £400 million Locals I spoke to in Warsaw seem to all hate it. Apparently the Mayor to Warsaw wanted to have a legacy for his time in office, and being a massive football fan, that was his big dream, whereas most he locals felt it could have been much better used elsewhere. Guide who was showing me around the Praga District was telling he went to see Metallica in it, and its getting a really bad reputation as a music venue (which was there big hope to claw back some of the money spent on it) as the acoustics in it are terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 knock doon Hampden and build a 30k seater stadium and training facilities in Perth. Done. Or just throw another two tiers onto McDiarmid. Done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstroma Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 They should have got some Polish builders in to do it instead.They did, but Stewart Regan was the project manager Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADTA-CM Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 We never sell out a 52,000 seater stadium, why would we want to play in a 67,000 seater? The SFA should be concentrating on setting a price structure that fills our current stadium for ALL games and not thinking about anything else. Never in my life have I heard of so many sitting in the pub for a qualifier. A simple £15 for this game and £55 for Germany would see both games full. Thats just basic. (I think £55 would be a scandal by the way, but you get my point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 We never sell out a 52,000 seater stadium, why would we want to play in a 67,000 seater? The SFA should be concentrating on setting a price structure that fills our current stadium for ALL games and not thinking about anything else. Never in my life have I heard of so many sitting in the pub for a qualifier. A simple £15 for this game and £55 for Germany would see both games full. Thats just basic. (I think £55 would be a scandal by the way, but you get my point.) Agree 100%. Nothing wrong with Hampden, nor any stadium if it's full. Hampden only stadium Ive been to where the noise at a big game made my ears ache. Noise was deafening. Stadium less of a problem than the suits running the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 My concern about Hampden, at the moment, is the absolute state of the pitch ! I know the Gibraltar game is not until March but if it's not going to be much better by then, we should consider playing it elsewhere, even Murrayfield, which has a much better new surface, with this combined grass and plastic woven through it (I believe). It really is not suitable to play good football on. You could see why the Celtic V Rangers game was really a bit of a kick and rush affair, with little or no good passing on display. I'm pretty sure that if the pitch had been in a good condition then the score would have been much greater in Celtic's favour (and I've no allegiance to either team). The last thing I want to see is us struggling to pass our way through Gibraltar, and have to resort to route one football, which will play into their hands !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 even Murrayfield, which has a much better new surface, with this combined grass and plastic woven through it (I believe). How do you go about mowing that stuff? When the mower has chopped the grass do you have to get a team of guys out with a sewing kit to thread more plastic blades through it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddybuc16 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Would love Murrayfield for big games, actually pretty much loath hampden for its location, transport links and its surrounding area as well as its structure. Getting to murrayfield is as much of a nightmare as hampden. Plus the pitch is too far away fae the stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langtonian Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 are the south,east and wests stands at hampden any closer to the pitch than the stands are to the pitch at murrayfield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmcca5 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) are the south,east and wests stands at hampden any closer to the pitch than the stands are to the pitch at murrayfield? From what I can see three sides are quite tight to the pitch but the larges stand running the length of the pitch has a running track or cinder track vbetween it and the playing surface. It looks quite a distance and that could be a pain. Saying that just don't buy a ticket for that stand and you will be sorted! This might show it better, Edited February 4, 2015 by kmcca5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langtonian Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 cheers outwith the main stand not much difference then 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.