RANGERRAB 3,299 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I understand it is costing Hearts £300k a game a lease Murrayfield from the SRU. I am guessing that all other costs still need to go on top of that. Personally i think Murrayfield is a great stadium, although only ever been for rugby. if it costs hertz £300k per game at Murrayfield why would the SFA even consider leaving Hampden? go figure 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 if it costs hertz £300k per game at Murrayfield why would the SFA even consider leaving Hampden? go figure Good point, keep the money in football. Use Ibrox & Celtic for big games, spread the wee games round the country. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Nobody concerned about losing the massive amount of history and tradition that comes with the Hampden venue? It is way into the top stadiums in the world for that. And for a Rangers reason - the amount of times we've played there which meant that it was called our "second home". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 13,762 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I really wish they had carried out a much better renovation of Hampden. I'm not sure what was possible though due to the residential surroundings. But, as it is, Hampden is crap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) I agree Hampden is not great, (although I've only sat in the north stand which wasn't too bad) but that is not the fault of the stadium itself. Like all stadiums it's been through many incarnations, and can do so again. But if you move it, you lose the history. I think our problem is the mismanagement of the SFA for decades - how can Rugby with a fraction of the interest, have a much better stadium - and always filled at that? Although part of that could be the amount of money that SFA have disseminated to the clubs who would have been crying out if they hadn't received it. Whereas the SRU probably kept the money more in house. I'm still envious of the way Wales went about joining forces and having an excellent stadium and can't help thinking we could have had a bigger better one, with a roof that we need more. Imagine and Old Firm final with say 84,000 - or any final with us and someone else where all our season ticket holders get to go plus plenty that don't get to games so often. However, again with the SFA's mismanagement, the national team would be constantly playing in what looks like a half empty stadium or worse. Edited October 30, 2017 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Nobody concerned about losing the massive amount of history and tradition that comes with the Hampden venue? It is way into the top stadiums in the world for that. And for a Rangers reason - the amount of times we've played there which meant that it was called our "second home". I have to disagree there Cal, Old Hampden had a rich history. The new one neither resembles the old not has any of its former atmosphere. In short, the renovations destroyed that stadium. I lived in that area and said at the time we should have built a new stadium somewhere with decent transport links. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacK1950 2,249 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 It was on the way down and the Commonwealth Games alteration and restoration was the final straw. I remember many great games,Scotland and Rangers with an atmosphere so electric it crackled. Over the past couple of seasons being at semis and finals found it having no intensity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,299 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Who knows what the future holds. I do not think Hampden will disappear. Far from it. I think it will be needed. But by who ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrheadboy 16 Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 It was on the way down and the Commonwealth Games alteration and restoration was the final straw.I remember many great games,Scotland and Rangers with an atmosphere so electric it crackled. Over the past couple of seasons being at semis and finals found it having no intensity. That might actually be the team we have had for past few years Hampden was the same we were better and more confident and made a better atmosphere and created more intensity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) What we (the sporting public) need is a national stadium of +/- 75,000 seats. Not for football or rugby but for all sports and also for non-sporting events. Hampden is a tawdry affair, badly placed for the nation as a whole and inadequate in size and facilities. Murrayfield comes much closer to the physical stadium we need but remains the "property" of rugby union. The best use of money would be to upgrade Murrayfield and to fund that as a nation rather than as individual sports. Failing that, scrap Hampden and build a new national stadium near the motorways south of Stirling. The worst use of money would be to waste inadequate funds trying to maintain Hampden as a football-only stadium. Edited October 30, 2017 by Bill 0 Quote Link to post 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.