DonsTalk

Main Board => Football Chat => Topic started by: tlg1903 on July 25, 2018, 01:46:16 AM

Title: The national stadium question
Post by: tlg1903 on July 25, 2018, 01:46:16 AM
So what do you think?

No move for me, Hampden has it's flaws but taking money out of the Scottish game and in putting it in the SRU's pocket gives me the dry boke. 
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Jute on July 25, 2018, 07:43:16 AM
So what do you think?

No move for me, Hampden has it's flaws but taking money out of the Scottish game and in putting it in the SRU's pocket gives me the dry boke.

If the option is give money to the SRU or rent the stadiums from the arse cheeks then I know where I would rather the cash went. Murrayfield is best option for public transport but pitch is a bit far away on main stand side but no worse than Hampden.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: rocket_scientist on July 25, 2018, 08:14:57 AM
Wasting money is a crime, particularly when perpetrated by arseholes who are wasting other people's cash.

The other people are us, normal fans who invest in the game. The arseholes are persons of a mentality that they want to work for quangos and similar public sectory type organisations. These cunts should have their spending audited by business people. Then again, whilst the waste generated by the SFA is probably due to simple incompetence, the business auditors would create waste by reasons of corruption.

It's a dimemma I tell thee. Caught between the charlatan and the deep red sea.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Ten Caat on July 25, 2018, 08:59:16 AM
Third option for me....

Build a completely new national stadium somewhere easily accessible to all areas of Scotland rather than just the central belt.....so somewhere in between Stirling and Perth probably. Initially buy the whole Hampden site including Lesser Hampden from Queen's Park allowing them to relocate to a new build ground with capacity for around 5k fans ....plenty locations for this on south side of Glasgow.
 Sell the whole site for development. It's enormous. If we can get 15million for Pittodrie site they should comfortably quadruple that.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: rocket_scientist on July 25, 2018, 09:05:02 AM
Third option for me....

Build a completely new national stadium somewhere easily accessible to all areas of Scotland rather than just the central belt.....so somewhere in between Stirling and Perth probably. Initially buy the whole Hampden site including Lesser Hampden from Queen's Park allowing them to relocate to a new build ground with capacity for around 5k fans ....plenty locations for this on south side of Glasgow.
 Sell the whole site for development. It's enormous. If we can get 15million for Pittodrie site they should comfortably quadruple that.

Maths not your speciality then.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on July 30, 2018, 12:03:15 AM
A site is only worth what a developer is willing to pay for it. Mount Florida is OK as is Kings Park but Toryglen is not (or at least wasn't last time I checked).
Pittodrie being valued at 15million is based on what developers reckon they could get from converting the site to housing. Houses in Aberdeen cost more than most parts of the south side of Glasgow

If the plan is to scrap hampden and spend money on building a new national stadium then as I see it the only way to make it stack up financially would be to demolish Murrayfield too therby emulating the Irish & Welsh and having just one main stadium for all sports (I am discounting Croke park as it is reserved for the Gaelic games). Spend extra on having a running track with retractable seating as well as a retractable roof and yer onto a winner. However moving it outside of the Central belt would not make business sense.
A stadium like that would need other sources of income so moving it away from the majority of the populaiton (central belt), the busiest railway stations from (Edinburgh Waverley & Glasgow Central), and the two businest Airports (guess which ones they are) makes it less attractive for concerts etc.

Believe I saw an article which said Queens Park would be hit with a bill of about £10million if the SFA left hampden as part of the redevelopment funding had conditions relating to it being used for Internationals and cup finals. It true the discussion of where Queen's park move to could be irrelevant.

Personally I am for Murrayfield mainly because it is the largest stadium and to my knowledge has not had 'ends' claimed by any team. I do however disagree on the comments about how good the transport links etc are for it. Hampden at least has multiple roads away from it, is less than 1mile from the M74, and has several surrounding railway stations on the send largest suburban rail network in the UK.
Cops can split different groups of supporters much easier

Murrayfield was pretty chaotic IMO after the dons game last september. I actually walked about halfway back to Haymarket station down the middle of the A8 which had not been closed to traffic yet was gridlocked because of the fans dispersing. Edinburgh's bus network is very good but does rely on the roads not being blocked by thousands of fans walking back to town.
International rugby crowds don't tend to have the 'angry' element which is all too common in club (and international) football crowds so would be interested to see how the cops dealt with that.


Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Jute on July 30, 2018, 09:41:25 AM
I went back to the pub after Dons game so cannot comment on crowd control that day. For the Rugby the A8 is usually closed to traffic after the game with pedestrian system split for those heading to town and those joining the queuing system for Haymarket. On the South side they usually have buses lined up to take fans straight down the Western approaches into town. Also now have the trams which run out to the oark and rides at Edinburgh Park and the Airport. Also with Haymarket being a main line station it has major advantage over stations around Hampden as it takes away the need to change trains in the centre of Glasgow to get anywhere else in the country.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on August 29, 2018, 09:44:49 AM
Quote
If the SFA move from Hampden to Murrayfield there will be blood on their hands. Staging a Celtic v Rangers game in a 67,000-capacity stadium in Edinburgh would be dangerous, irresponsible and unworkable. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

The above quote is from Scottish football journalist Mathew Lindsay.


Best that we just stay at Hampden then as we do not want to upset the only two clubs that matter in Scottish football.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: manc_don on August 29, 2018, 09:47:20 AM
The above quote is from Scottish football journalist Mathew Lindsay.


Best that we just stay at Hampden then as we do not want to upset the only two clubs that matter in Scottish football.

For that alone I hope they see sense and move. Fuck hamdump.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: wee toon red on August 29, 2018, 09:48:18 AM
Fuck all point moving from Hampden to Murrayfield. It might be bigger but Murrayfield isn't significantly better to warrant a move.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on August 29, 2018, 11:59:50 AM
Fuck all point moving from Hampden to Murrayfield. It might be bigger but Murrayfield isn't significantly better to warrant a move.

Yes it is, Hampden's shite. I like Hampden's location actually, but the ground is a disgrace and paying money for the shite view you get from the ends is a disgrace.

A bit like Westminster being in London results in a London-centric view of everything politically and a drain on resources, Hampden does similar in Scottish fitba by being in Glasgow. Hence the wailing of the press who would have to get off their arses and move to Edinburgh to be in front of the story. The quote above from Lencarl perfectly encapsulates the need for Scottish fitba to relocate. It's for the betterment of the entire game.

Murrayfield is pish as well like with it's 800 metre long pitch. It's still better though.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on August 29, 2018, 12:33:27 PM
David Begg

Quote
Hadn't thought of this before, but as Celtic and Rangers  will be in more Cup finals and semifinals than other clubs (somebody can work out the historic figures) and most of their fans are from the greater Glasgow area it makes sense to stick with a redeveloped Hampden.


Another one who believes our National Stadium is for just for the Ugly Sisters and their fans to use.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: wee toon red on August 29, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
Yes it is, Hampden's shite. I like Hampden's location actually, but the ground is a disgrace and paying money for the shite view you get from the ends is a disgrace.

A bit like Westminster being in London results in a London-centric view of everything politically and a drain on resources, Hampden does similar in Scottish fitba by being in Glasgow. Hence the wailing of the press who would have to get off their arses and move to Edinburgh to be in front of the story. The quote above from Lencarl perfectly encapsulates the need for Scottish fitba to relocate. It's for the betterment of the entire game.

Murrayfield is pish as well like with it's 800 metre long pitch. It's still better though.

As I said, Murrayfield's better but not significantly better. Still shite views from behind the goals and not without segregation issues so why move unless it's somewhere actually worth going? Moving won't solve any of the significant spetator-related issues currently affecting Hampden.

Not necessarily from you, but there's more than a hint of "get up Glasgow and the Old Firm" from some of the people who want to move to Murrayfield.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Ramperbamper on August 29, 2018, 01:03:07 PM
Stay at Hampden and redevelop.

I think they'll go to Murrayfield though, potentially after delaying the decision.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: donsdaft on August 29, 2018, 01:09:28 PM
Flatten Hampden


No way can they ever give up their catholic end , protestant end shite so just flatten it.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on August 29, 2018, 01:13:30 PM
As I said, Murrayfield's better but not significantly better. Still shite views from behind the goals and not without segregation issues so why move unless it's somewhere actually worth going? Moving won't solve any of the significant spetator-related issues currently affecting Hampden.

I'd probably agree with most of that. The suggestion is, is that it is Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is, with no hope of improvements to Hampden.

Quote
Not necessarily from you, but there's more than a hint of "get up Glasgow and the Old Firm" from some of the people who want to move to Murrayfield.

Aye, you could be right. However, the existing Glasgow base (of the SFA at least) worsens the pervasive grip that the scum have in this country, which is at a detriment to the game, to the extent that it will eventually ruin us and others completely. Any change to this arrangement greatly heightens the chance of progressive change in the game from an objective perspective. Obviously it doesn't have to be a stadium move, however the notion that the scum travelling to Edinburgh regularly is a bad thing is a little short-sighted. Anything that can get them to compromise, to not be put at the forefront of every decision and to not entirely have everything their own way can only be good for the entire game, and it doesn't have to be from a "get it up them" type viewpoint. It's about reducing our reliance on the scum and making the game more broad in its appeal.

To add: Donsdaft's point is so pertinent. A new start for Scottish fitba. End that shite.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Ten Caat on August 29, 2018, 02:45:42 PM
Flatten Hampden


No way can they ever give up their catholic end , protestant end shite so just flatten it.

Have a simmie

Anything at all to disrupt the west coast bias inherent in the SFA and the media has to be a good thing.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: wee toon red on August 29, 2018, 02:58:03 PM
I'd probably agree with most of that. The suggestion is, is that it is Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is, with no hope of improvements to Hampden.

Aye, you could be right. However, the existing Glasgow base (of the SFA at least) worsens the pervasive grip that the scum have in this country, which is at a detriment to the game, to the extent that it will eventually ruin us and others completely. Any change to this arrangement greatly heightens the chance of progressive change in the game from an objective perspective. Obviously it doesn't have to be a stadium move, however the notion that the scum travelling to Edinburgh regularly is a bad thing is a little short-sighted. Anything that can get them to compromise, to not be put at the forefront of every decision and to not entirely have everything their own way can only be good for the entire game, and it doesn't have to be from a "get it up them" type viewpoint. It's about reducing our reliance on the scum and making the game more broad in its appeal.

To add: Donsdaft's point is so pertinent. A new start for Scottish fitba. End that shite.

To bring in a new era you need more than a city or stadium switch unfortunately. And sadly I don't think moving to Murrayfield would make one iota of difference to the authorities' approach to running the game, whether that's in relation to their rangers/celtic bias or anything else.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Jute on August 29, 2018, 05:43:40 PM
Decision delayed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45344636
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on August 29, 2018, 06:08:53 PM
Decision delayed.

Ha ha ha. Fucking pathetic. Cunts.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Elgindon on August 29, 2018, 07:12:34 PM
David Begg


Another one who believes our National Stadium is for just for the Ugly Sisters and their fans to use.


   Always liked David Begg too,canna believe he said that.   Flippin poultice    :hammer:
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on August 31, 2018, 07:40:26 AM
Quote
Joan Collins claims Hampden is finished — and believes former players should be part of the decision-making process regarding the stadium’s future. The former Scotland star insists national team games should tour the country and that prospective Old Firm cup finals could be alternated between Ibrox and Celtic Park.

Let's get the SFA to pay for upgrades to Ibrox and Parkhead and play ALL our National games and cup finals at these two grounds.

What exactly does Joan Collins do for a living apart from talk complete shit ?
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on August 31, 2018, 08:50:27 PM
I could be wrong but I believe one of the reasons competitive scotland games are no longer 'toured' around the country is because only 4 stadiums meet UEFA's pathetic excuse for criteria for competitive internationals (category 4). 3 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh (and its a rugby one).

For all the good work Hearts and Hibs have done I believe there is little or nothing they can do to get the category 4 rating short of demolishing relatively new stands and sacrificing standard seats for corporate and media facilities (2tv studios, 10 commentary positions minimum 150 VIP car parking spaces, 1000m2 external area for tv vans to name but a few criteria).

Same applies for Rugby Park and definetly for pittodrie.

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Jute on August 31, 2018, 09:16:04 PM
I could be wrong but I believe one of the reasons competitive scotland games are no longer 'toured' around the country is because only 4 stadiums meet UEFA's pathetic excuse for criteria for competitive internationals (category 4). 3 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh (and its a rugby one).

For all the good work Hearts and Hibs have done I believe there is little or nothing they can do to get the category 4 rating short of demolishing relatively new stands and sacrificing standard seats for corporate and media facilities (2tv studios, 10 commentary positions minimum 150 VIP car parking spaces, 1000m2 external area for tv vans to name but a few criteria).

Same applies for Rugby Park and definetly for pittodrie.

I have been to qualifiers in recent years that do not meet the above criteria so other countries must be finding ways round the above criteria. Much like the UEFA rules for Europa league.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on August 31, 2018, 09:26:09 PM
I have been to qualifiers in recent years that do not meet the above criteria so other countries must be finding ways round the above criteria. Much like the UEFA rules for Europa league.

Could you give a couple of examples as I'm struggling with this category bullshit and cant believe the likes of Andorra, Faroe islands etc meet this.
Wondering if UEFA just pick and choose as it suits
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 10, 2018, 08:59:20 AM
Quote
Urging the SFA to use Murrayfield, Ibrox and Parkhead, Souness told The Sunday Times: 'I was working in Scotland when they were talking about spending all the money on revamping Hampden and, at the time, I said: "Why are you doing that? You've got two fabulous stadiums in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh. Why not use all three and go and build a hospital instead?". I was much-criticised for it, but that's still my thinking.
'It's not the stadium that's important. It's the supporters and the support won't be less if it's at Murrayfield, Ibrox or Celtic Park rather than Hampden.
'Could you not introduce a rule that if Celtic or Rangers get to a cup final, it goes to the other stadium? If both get there, it could be at Murrayfield, or they could toss up or take it alternate times. There are ways round everything.'

I really wish that Souness would stop getting quoted about this issue.

He does speak some crap.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 10, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
I really wish that Souness would stop getting quoted about this issue.

He does speak some crap.

You might not agree with his opinion on this particular occasion (I think he's a populist dick) but he's certainly not speaking nonsense in that particular quote. His suggested solution is fairly logical and not controversial. Which parts do you have issue with?
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 10, 2018, 09:52:46 AM
You might not agree with his opinion on this particular occasion (I think he's a populist dick) but he's certainly not speaking nonsense in that particular quote. His suggested solution is fairly logical and not controversial. Which parts do you have issue with?


The SFA would have to use public money to renovate Parkhead and Ibrox which only benefits the owners of the stadiums.

We do not require 3 different venues to play Scotland matches or Cup Finals.

By all accounts it looks like the SFA are trying to buy Hampden on the cheap from Queens Park anyway.

And another reason is that Souness is a populist dick as you have mentioned.

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 10, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
We do not require 3 different venues to play Scotland matches or Cup Finals.

Aye, I see fit yer saying, I agree with you on that. If Murayfield were given the green light then there would be no need for the other two. Similarly if we chose one of Parkhead or Ibrox. The notion that we couldn't choose one of either Parkhead or Ibrox either is a symptom of the biggest problem in our game.

Quote
By all accounts it looks like the SFA are trying to buy Hampden on the cheap from Queens Park anyway

I'm not sure why QP don't just put it on the market for sale to the highest bidder, be it for flats or fitever. That would stop the SFA dicking about and put the whole thing to bed. QP could get themselves a cracking stadium somewhere else with a wedge leftover for coke and stippers.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Ten Caat on September 10, 2018, 05:46:45 PM
The Record are going with the SFA offering Queens Park £4 million for Hampdung. QP are supposedly after £6 million which will allow them to do up Lesser Hampden. The whole site is huge I would have thought QP could have got a far bigger offer from a developer ( If Pittodrie is "worth" circa £20 million then the whole Hampden site Id have guessed worth at least twice that probably nearer 3 times it). That would have taken the whole question out of the SFA's hands at a stroke.

I really would have preferred a new dedicated ground built near a motorway and accessible within an hour of Edinburgh/Glasgow/Dundee  but that isn't on the cards so Murrayfield to me is the best option. We should only use it for actual qualifiers though. Friendlies can be taken round the country. What has to be avoided at all costs is the SFA saying that Ibrokes/Porkheed will become the dedicated options on a rotational basis.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Kowalski on September 11, 2018, 01:53:50 PM
BBC saying we’re sticking with Hampden.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 11, 2018, 03:39:11 PM
BBC saying we’re sticking with Hampden.

The deal that means Scottish football will remain at its spiritual home will see the SFA buy Hampden Park from part-timers Queen’s Park.
Scottish businessman and former non-executive Celtic director Haughey will provide half of the £5m figure.


“We have heard the fans’ views throughout the process and agree with them that we need to improve access, transport links and the overall experience.
“We are committed to doing that.”



Two things:

1…..What is Lord Willie Haughey getting out of this wee loan to the SFA?

2....When have the SFA EVER listened to the fans vews ?

The SFA will demand public funds to renovate Hampden which will take a while, and use Parkhead and Ibrox as the stadiums for Cup Finals and semi finals.


Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on September 11, 2018, 08:27:03 PM
Sportsound & co citing Stuttgarty's stadium as an example of what could be done at Hampden

2006 World Cup (58million euro redevelopment) 52000 capacity

(https://shop.11freunde.de/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1200x698/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/s/t/stuttgart_2003_coddou__1200px.jpg)

After redevelopment (completed 2011 63.5million euros) 64000 capacity (54000 when all seated)

(https://www.sbp.de/fileadmin/sbp.de/projects/8F8F6E8A3C415B07C1257E750036EBC0_0_1_birdeyeview_beschnitten_MAX.jpg)

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 12, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Quote
The Scottish FA also hinted that redevelopment of Hampden may be possible through ownership, but did not go into detail.

I bet they fucking didn't  :laughing:
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on September 12, 2018, 08:24:46 PM
I bet they fucking didn't  :laughing:

Do you?
You rent a property and one day you decide to make some improvements. If yer a 'good' tenant you ask your landlord for permission who in turn will need to consider if your changes will improve or potentially damage their investment. In a domestic property if its merely painting a room then yer usually fine as it wont cost much to rectify and they could always withold yer deposit at the end. If you start knocking down walls or extending then its another matter.
In commercial property its common for lease agreements to have a clause stating you will return the property back to the state it was prior to occupation but you still need to get permission from the landlord to do anything and if you do it against their wishes they can kick you out.
Now Queens park may be a small amatuer club but they were the owners and whatever the SFA proposed the Spiders opening gambit would be 'whats in it for us?'.
Businesses come along saying they want to buy the naming rights - 'whats in it for us?'
We'd like to build offices, shops, a hotel, student halls into the structure of a new stand(s) to build revenue streams -  'whats in it for us?'

and so on

Now Queens park are gone its one less hurdle for potential investors plus now the SFA have an asset they can take out loans against
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: CvB on September 12, 2018, 08:40:56 PM
fucking multi millionaire weedgies jumping in to financially secure the future of that grey fucking shitehole. Actually makes me even more pissed off than just the standard corrupt incompetent pricks that normally fuck everything up.

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 12, 2018, 11:09:24 PM
fucking multi millionaire weedgies jumping in to financially secure the future of that grey fucking shitehole. Actually makes me even more pissed off than just the standard corrupt incompetent pricks that normally fuck everything up.

I assume Tom Farmer isn't a weegie? That aside, it's a good point. The national game shoudn't be an investment vehicle for someone who owns nearby property or wants to make a mint off hotels and shite. I know it is, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be. Fitba really isn't a sport anymore, is it?
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: manc_don on September 13, 2018, 02:19:37 AM
I assume Tom Farmer isn't a weegie? That aside, it's a good point. The national game shoudn't be an investment vehicle for someone who owns nearby property or wants to make a mint off hotels and shite. I know it is, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be. Fitba really isn't a sport anymore, is it?

Agreed
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: CvB on September 13, 2018, 08:16:20 AM
I assume Tom Farmer isn't a weegie? That aside, it's a good point. The national game shoudn't be an investment vehicle for someone who owns nearby property or wants to make a mint off hotels and shite. I know it is, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be. Fitba really isn't a sport anymore, is it?

good point about Farmer, got too caught up in my own rant to fact check.

Still boils my piss though.
Of course, I may be doing the corrupt bastards a disservice. With full ownership of Hampden there's maybe a secret plan to sell it and then rebuild a proper stadium in a centrally accessible part of Scotland. 

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 13, 2018, 10:44:40 AM
good point about Farmer, got too caught up in my own rant to fact check.

Still boils my piss though.
Of course, I may be doing the corrupt bastards a disservice. With full ownership of Hampden there's maybe a secret plan to sell it and then rebuild a proper stadium in a centrally accessible part of Scotland. 

Aye, I do that! Facts are for dicks. To be honest, if we were moving down the route of "centrally accessible" then we'd be far better served not building a stadium and moving games around the country. Semis and Scotland games against Albania and the likes can go to Edinburgh or Westhill when not featuring the scum. Big Scotland games, semis and finals to one of the scum grounds or Murrayfield on occasion. The notion that we should be signing up to some sort of X year contract to always play games in a particular ground is a serious problem too (see Dons v Motherwell and Dons v St Johnstone recently). Sell hampden and put the money into something useful like grassroots development or knocking down Ibrox.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tom_widdows on September 13, 2018, 02:47:47 PM
I assume Tom Farmer isn't a weegie? That aside, it's a good point. The national game shoudn't be an investment vehicle for someone who owns nearby property or wants to make a mint off hotels and shite. I know it is, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be. Fitba really isn't a sport anymore, is it?

Tom Hunter (New Cumnock) is the man yer after

Tom Farmer (as far as I know) hasn't done anything yet. Hes from Leith if anyone's interested

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 13, 2018, 04:56:47 PM
Tom Hunter (New Cumnock) is the man yer after

Tom Farmer (as far as I know) hasn't done anything yet. Hes from Leith if anyone's interested

Whatever. Fuckin weegies.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tlg1903 on September 13, 2018, 06:22:43 PM
Really don't see what the whinge fest is all about.  Everything I am hearing about this decison seems positive.  They are going to try and find a way to renovate the stadium so there will be better views behind the goal. Tick.  The SFA will no longer be contractually obliged tp play all competitive games at Hampden and can use other grounds. Tick. Not one fucking penny leaving the Scottish game for the SRU.  Tick.  Seems to me this is a really good outcome for the Scottish game.  Oh and Willie haughey was on the radio last night saying investment is not a loan but a no strings gift.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: CvB on September 13, 2018, 06:53:21 PM
Really don't see what the whinge fest is all about.  Everything I am hearing about this decison seems positive.  They are going to try and find a way to renovate the stadium so there will be better views behind the goal. Tick.  The SFA will no longer be contractually obliged tp play all competitive games at Hampden and can use other grounds. Tick. Not one fucking penny leaving the Scottish game for the SRU.  Tick.  Seems to me this is a really good outcome for the Scottish game.  Oh and Willie haughey was on the radio last night saying investment is not a loan but a no strings gift.

Unless they plan to bulldoze the shitholes that surround hampden then I don't see much improvement.
Unless there's a plan to improve the infrastructure so it doesn't take 3 hours to get past the city boundries then it will still be a shit place to go to a game of football.
All this money that's "not going to the SRU" will be used for what exactly?
For Scottish football to move forward it needs a radical overhaul and cutting the links to glasgow should be step one.

I think your ticks may need some ointment because I'm not seeing anything particularly positive from them.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tlg1903 on September 13, 2018, 10:10:38 PM
Unless they plan to bulldoze the shitholes that surround hampden then I don't see much improvement.
Unless there's a plan to improve the infrastructure so it doesn't take 3 hours to get past the city boundries then it will still be a shit place to go to a game of football.
All this money that's "not going to the SRU" will be used for what exactly?
For Scottish football to move forward it needs a radical overhaul and cutting the links to glasgow should be step one.

I think your ticks may need some ointment because I'm not seeing anything particularly positive from them.

Cool story bro.  Why don't you just say you don't agree because you fucking hate Glasgow and be done with it?

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: CvB on September 14, 2018, 08:14:35 AM
Cool story bro.  Why don't you just say you don't agree because you fucking hate Glasgow and be done with it?

hey Bro...(what the fuck are you, 12?)

Why don't you just accept that some people think the stadium is a fucking dump.

Newsflash dickhead, some people have differing opinions to yourself and, like yourself, want to put their opinion across.

Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: donsdaft on September 14, 2018, 12:39:25 PM
What’s wrong with hating Glasgow?
It’s a minging shitehole.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Kowalski on September 14, 2018, 02:01:57 PM
I don’t hate Hampden the stadium as much as others but I just think it’s in the wrong place. Given vast numbers of the locals would rather support Ireland or the Guffs, the National Stadium should be somewhere around Perth or Stirling to make it far more accessible to the whole of Scotland. Significant numbers of the Tartan Army travel from north of the central belt. As stated above, that side of Glasgow can be horrendous to get out of if you’re travelling by car or coach.

It ain’t gonna happen.
I’d have taken Murrayfield as it’s a little easier to get to.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: RicoS321 on September 14, 2018, 02:32:03 PM
I don’t hate Hampden the stadium as much as others but I just think it’s in the wrong place. Given vast numbers of the locals would rather support Ireland or the Guffs, the National Stadium should be somewhere around Perth or Stirling to make it far more accessible to the whole of Scotland. Significant numbers of the Tartan Army travel from north of the central belt. As stated above, that side of Glasgow can be horrendous to get out of if you’re travelling by car or coach.

It ain’t gonna happen.
I’d have taken Murrayfield as it’s a little easier to get to.

I think that having a 50K seater stadium in Stirling or Perth would only prove how stupid the idea of "a national stdaium" actually is. My folks were at Elche th'ither night watching the national team tank the world cup finalists because Spain don't need a national stadium. It's arrogant and stupid and a waste of resource. Perth or Stirling wouldn't handle 50,000 spectators coming in about to the towns. Glasgow and Edinburgh (and to an extent Aberdeen or even Dundee) could handle 35K plus regularly without issue.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: wee toon red on September 14, 2018, 03:29:26 PM
I think that having a 50K seater stadium in Stirling or Perth would only prove how stupid the idea of "a national stdaium" actually is. My folks were at Elche th'ither night watching the national team tank the world cup finalists because Spain don't need a national stadium. It's arrogant and stupid and a waste of resource. Perth or Stirling wouldn't handle 50,000 spectators coming in about to the towns. Glasgow and Edinburgh (and to an extent Aberdeen or even Dundee) could handle 35K plus regularly without issue.

In a country as parochial as Scotland, and with our stacked football system being what it is, taking games "round the country" would in reality give people the chance to moan about money being spent renting stadia from the Huns/the Tims/the Sheepshaggers/the posh rugby cunts so, for once, I think the SFA were damned if they did and damned if they didn't on this one.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 14, 2018, 03:49:56 PM
I was looking around to see why Queens Park sold Hampden on the cheap and found out why.

We have been the owners of Scotland's National Stadium for the past 115 years. No-one can take that heritage away from us. But perhaps the time has now come for us to accept that Scottish Football in the 21st century has changed, and that in order to survive we too have to change. We have an opportunity to ensure the survival of the Queen's Park Football Club, free from potential liabilities.The National Stadium Company face a £4.5m bill for the repayment of debenture seats sold in 1999. They would also be required to return half of a £24m Millennium Commission grant handed over as part of a £60m upgrade 18 years ago if Hampden's status as 'The National Stadium' ends before 2040.


Queens Park were facing liabilities of £16m and Hampden would have to be pulled down if not sold to the SFA.
Good reason to sell for £5 Million but will the SFA still have to pay another £16 Million in bills.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Slim on September 14, 2018, 04:06:07 PM
How many countries have a national stadium outwith its capital/largest city? Struggling to think of any.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Kowalski on September 14, 2018, 05:13:42 PM
How many countries have a national stadium outwith its capital/largest city? Struggling to think of any.

Not sure. Vast majority surely have their national stadium in their capital city, irrespective of whether it’s the largest city.
Spain and Italy seem to rotate their venues.
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: tlg1903 on September 14, 2018, 07:37:49 PM
hey Bro...(what the fuck are you, 12?)

Why don't you just accept that some people think the stadium is a fucking dump.

Newsflash dickhead, some people have differing opinions to yourself and, like yourself, want to put their opinion across.

No I'm 39 but I thought I should drop down to your intellectual level. 

I'm well aware that some people think the place is a dump, where did I suggest otherwise?

Other opinions are fine too but when they are as stupid as some of the things you were suggesting?  This is a football forum not a special needs school. 

1. what the fuck has the housing around the stadium got to do with whether or not Scotland play there?  It's completely irrelevant.
2. if you honestly need an explanation why monies generated by scottish football staying in scottish football and significant wedge  not being handed over to another sport is a good thing then there really is no hope for you.
3. "For Scottish football to move forward it needs a radical overhaul and cutting the links to glasgow should be step one."  what the fuck does this even mean?  How does the SFA cut links with glasgow?  You want Maxwell to hold a presser stating no professional football to be played in the largest population centre in the country or something?  Away back to licking windows mate. 
Literally the only fair point you had was about transport but that can, should, and hopefully will, be worked on.

One other thing I would add as I've seen a few post's mentioning it.  I know there are some within the supports of the ugly sisters that don't support Scotland but it really is the diehard bigots.  I've been away to Kiev and Milan to watch Scotland games and there was loads of Rangers and Celtic fans there supporting Scotland.  To state that the majority won't support the Scottish national side
because they support Ireland or England instead is way off the mark if you ask me. 
Title: Re: The national stadium question
Post by: Lencarl on September 21, 2018, 09:13:45 AM
Queen's Park have claimed the Scottish FA attempted to buy Hampden Park for just £1.

A meeting of more than 100 of the amateur club’s members heard that the paltry offer was made in the hope that it would be accepted as Queen’s would have had to pay back £18m funding to the National Lottery and debenture holders if the SFA had moved to Murrayfield.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/queens-park-claim-sfa-tried-13280645


Great to see that Queens Park stood up to the SFA bully boys. The SFA are indeed a bunch of twats.