Murrayfield

[ranger_syntax 3,793]

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.

 

I don't agree with most of the things you say here.

 

Why is Hampden too small? Few games played at Hampden sell out.

 

Why is Hampden inadequate? My only complaint is that many of the seats are far from the pitch.

 

Why do you think that a national stadium should be near motorways South of Stirling? That assumes that it most important to cater to fans who drive to the match. Many others like to do things such as go to the pub before and after a match. This is not something that your proposal will cater for. This last point applies to a few other things too like hotels and restaurants. A big city like Glasgow can provide all these things.

 

Finally, imagine how silly it would be making the two largest travelling supports in the country go to Stirling for a cup final. You would alienate and disappoint the largest number of supporters possible.

[boabie 230]

RS - " imagine how silly it would be making the two largest travelling supports in the country go to Stirling for a cup final."

Many fans of those two teams pass by Stirling on their way to Glasgow.

Stirling wasn't my choice of location btw.

[ranger_syntax 3,793]

Many fans of those two teams pass by Stirling on their way to Glasgow.

 

I know.

 

I think it is safe to say that most don't though.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Hampden is a crap stadium and was exceptionally poor value for money, I've always believed at the time there should have been a full public enquiry into it. It's basically a conference centre with a football pitch thrown on to it. The fans experience was very much an afterthought.

 

Murrayfield wasn't much better in my opinion, it's a National Stadium and at a sporting event the only accessible disabled toilets I had access to were chemical portaloos it's 2017 furfuxake.

 

Both stadiums disabled facilities are little more than a sick joke.

 

I'd knock them both down and build a new multi-use National Stadium round about Stirling as it affords easy access to the whole of Scotland from North,South, East and West. Contrary to what many people imagine there's more to Scotland than Edinburgh and Glasgow and the bit in between.

[RANGERRAB 3,296]

The problem about building a new national stadium is where the funding would come from.

[StuGers 477]

All this talk of building a new stadium outside of Glasgow is nonsense. It makes perfect sense to build the stadium within what is Scotland’s biggest city by a long shot.

[Bill 13,717]

All this talk of building a new stadium outside of Glasgow is nonsense. It makes perfect sense to build the stadium within what is Scotland’s biggest city by a long shot.

According to the latest figures, Glasgow has 11% of Scotland's population. The idea of Glaswegians having to drive 20 minutes up the motorway might seem absurd but the rest of the country has been doing it for years and I'm sure the people of Glasgow would learn to cope in time.

 

In any case, my proposition wasn't for a new football stadium but for a new national stadium for all sports and other national events. Not funded by football, not for the benefit of one city, but funded by the nation as an essential piece of national infrastructure.

[Bill 13,717]

Hampden is a crap stadium and was exceptionally poor value for money, I've always believed at the time there should have been a full public enquiry into it. It's basically a conference centre with a football pitch thrown on to it. The fans experience was very much an afterthought.

 

Murrayfield wasn't much better in my opinion, it's a National Stadium and at a sporting event the only accessible disabled toilets I had access to were chemical portaloos it's 2017 furfuxake.

 

Both stadiums disabled facilities are little more than a sick joke.

 

I'd knock them both down and build a new multi-use National Stadium round about Stirling as it affords easy access to the whole of Scotland from North,South, East and West. Contrary to what many people imagine there's more to Scotland than Edinburgh and Glasgow and the bit in between.

 

Why would you knock down Murrayfield? Unless it was to use the site for a new stadium of course. But that wouldn't improve access, traffic management, parking, transport integration, etc any more than the current logistical nightmare of Hampden.

[MacK1950 2,246]

Proposing a new "National Stadium" for all sports seems okay on paper but when you stop to think if it is for all sports this would not make viewing any better.

Athletics would need a running track,a long/triple jump pit,a high jump pit etc. so fans would be just as far away from the pitch.

[Bill 13,717]

Proposing a new "National Stadium" for all sports seems okay on paper but when you stop to think if it is for all sports this would not make viewing any better.

Athletics would need a running track,a long/triple jump pit,a high jump pit etc. so fans would be just as far away from the pitch.

 

Yes and if we want to be completely pedantic we would also need an 18 hole golf course, a ski slope and a mountain bike track. Let's be serious, if the Welsh can do it, surely we can come up with something better than we've got.