CammyF 7,986 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hampdump has to be one of the worst 'international' stadiums around. In it's favour, it isn't ideally located for expansion as it is surrounded by houses etc. It also have a large percentage of seats that give you a terrible view of the game, especially in the the later rows of the Rangers and Celtc ends or if you happen to be in the first half-dozen rows of any of the 'stands'. Can't believe that the SFA ploughed �£20M into the 'redevelopment' of Hampden - this money could have been used for grass-roots football and the SFA could have used any number of stadiums for internationals and used Murrayfield and or Ibrox and Torbett Towers for cup finals. However, as has been mentioned, the old Hampden was awesome - who can forget choking to death every time Rangers scored as you were submerged in red ash..... Cammy F 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Why does scotland lag behind in every department in sport? If you look at hampden compared to wembley, millenium stadium and croke park it is a million miles behind. The capacity of our national stadium for a such a big footballing country is a disgrace then you take a look around the stadium and it is very very basic. You check out wembley and the millenium stadium (can't comment on croke park because ive never been) and everything about the place is first class. I just feel that we should have a stadium that we could walk into and look around and go WOW. I dont know know who funds these things but come on if wales can have the millenium surely we could have a state of the art stadium as well. Very true. Football is the national game in Scotland, yet Murrayfield is better than Hampden in just about every way you could imagine, even leaving aside the fact it has 15,000 more seats. Any rugby fan visiting Hampden must feel like they've travelled back two decades in time. And that's after the much-vaunted rebuild. I don't actually mind Hampden, but we could and should have done so much better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,614 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 However, as has been mentioned, the old Hampden was awesome - who can forget choking to death every time Rangers scored as you were submerged in red ash..... The old section J. Up there with the best atmospheres I've ever encountered. I remember getting into the north enclosure and jumping the fence as behinfd the goal was a far better atmosphere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 7,986 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The old section J. Up there with the best atmospheres I've ever encountered. I remember getting into the north enclosure and jumping the fence as behinfd the goal was a far better atmosphere. Yeah, even climbing the stairs into the old Rangers end was awe-inspiring. The noise of singing getting louder and louder as you climbed, then into section J for a sash-bash from 1st minute to last (whether it was Rangers or Scotland that you were there to see!)... Changed days Cammy F 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 846 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 The redevelopment was so the fat cats get nicer offices rather than the old worn down stand. There was no way they would swap that decision to put it into roots of the game. Have to say Im a fan of Hampden also from a traditional point of view, but just not the design and capacity. The ruined it when they made it an all seater, if they were doing this they should have thought about the design and future expansion. Its old design could easy hold double its capacity now and form an excellent atmosphere. Even the 1987 cup final between St Mirren and Dundee Utd pulled in 57,000 - there is no way they would fill hampden now due to the changes in the game. But IMO it definatly needs thought about. As i mentioned before Tynecastle will be able to hold semi finals between 2 non OF teams once there stand is done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Very true. Football is the national game in Scotland, yet Murrayfield is better than Hampden in just about every way you could imagine, even leaving aside the fact it has 15,000 more seats. Any rugby fan visiting Hampden must feel like they've travelled back two decades in time. And that's after the much-vaunted rebuild. I don't actually mind Hampden, but we could and should have done so much better. I think there is a couple of reasons that that the rugby stadium is better than Hampden. Firstly, every 5 nations game, or a game against the 3 southern hemisphere teams, used to be and by all accounts still are, sold out. Hampden struggled to do this for decades. There is a vast difference between international rugby and the league stuff where you get far more enthusiasm from the fans and it means it's top dog and never overshadowed by club rugby. This is the opposite in football where most OF fans support their team first and Scotland second (if at all). Many Celtic fans support Ireland instead and many Rangers fans have been totally alienated by the SFA. Rugby is therefore geared around the international side of things and profits spent to that effect including on the stadium, whereas there has been more pressure in football to spread any SFA money around the clubs and to grass roots. Rugby is also a far better run sport with less fat cats and hangers on due to the only recent change from Amateur to Professional status. Being amateur for such a long time also saved Scottish rugby a fortune. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 PS I think the renovation of Hampden was a huge compromise due to lack of SFA and government money. If we had decided to do it a couple of years ago, had qualified for a couple more finals recently and put a bid into the government and national lottery after Wembley was well on it's way, then I think we'd have had a far, far greater budget of possibly around 150M which would probably be enough to demolish, start again and build something like the Millenium stadium. Basically we did it too early and chose stupid managers who couldn't get us to the finals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 846 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wasnt the renovation of the main stand at hampden to do with getting the CL final in 2002? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 7,986 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Wasnt the renovation of the main stand at hampden to do with getting the CL final in 2002? Yip, another waste of money as Scotland had at that time another 5 star stadium that was ready to host a European Final (it still is and the SFA still REFUSE to nominate it to host a final).... Cammy F 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yip, another waste of money as Scotland had at that time another 5 star stadium that was ready to host a European Final (it still is and the SFA still REFUSE to nominate it to host a final).... Cammy F More farcical management. 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.