The future of Hampden

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

Ditch it.

[Greenfly]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My beef with Queens Park is that their continued ownership of the stadium is a nonsense .... without the input of the SFA and SPFL over the years the place would have been a housing estate by now, or at the very least a crumbling ruin. Any money made available to it from public funds or sponsorship has been on the back of the stadiums connection with the Scottish national team and major cup finals and absolutely nothing to do with Queens Park .... on that basis the fact that they still own it and make the SFA and SPFL pay for the privilege of using it is a joke in my opinion.

You might be impressed with their custodianship of the stadium, I'm not. Thatcher might have pulled the plug on the redevelopment, but that was over 25 years ago, in the time since then they have built the millennium stadium ( with 46 million quid from the national lottery funding nearly half of it ) Wembley stadium has been constructed ( with nearly 300 million coming from the national lottery and local public funds ) and the AVIVA stadium in Dublin has been built. Not to mention Murrayfield, a far more impressive stadium with not a single penny of lottery or government money. I think the time to stop blaming Thatcher for the current state of Hampden has long passed. The last meaningful development at the stadium was 20 years ago.


They missed an absolute open goal when the Commonwealth games were going to be held there. The Scottish government and Glasgow city council between them spent between 500 and 600 million pounds ( even more by some accounts ) on the games. They were so desperate to see the games come to Glasgow they even went so far as to forcibly remove folk from their homes to make way for athletes accommodation.

They spent all that money and yet the one venue the games simply couldn't have taken place without, Hampden Park, emerged from the whole massively expensive process looking exactly the same and with the same facilities it started with, in spite of having an eye watering 14 million pounds spent on it to install a raised running track ..... That to me was a totally missed opportunity, they could have at the very least squeezed a promise out of the powers that be to commit to funding demolition and rebuilding of the east and west terraces after the games were finished, the cost of which would still have been a drop in the ocean compared to the massive amount of public money spent overall.

I'm sure Queens Park are a fine institution as a football club and do oodles for the community ..... as a business running what is supposed to be our national stadium they are not fit for purpose in my opinion.

I still can't understand why Queen's Park's absolutely legitimate ownership of a Hampden is such "a nonsense" nor why them wanting to charge a rent to anyone who wants to hire it offends you so much. They're perfectly entitled to rent out their asset at an agreed price. Presumably if the price wasn't competitive the SFA / SPFL etc. would be speaking to Celtic, Rangers (the) or the SRU to negotiate an alternative. QP don't make profit for any shareholder or line anyone's pockets as you suggested but they aren't a charity so of course they charge for renting out their ground. How else do they fund its upkeep for these events?

You're right to point out that other (and undoubtedly better stadia) have been built in other countries with vast lottery and other public funds in recent years. This underlines how underfunded Hampden has been from these pots in comparison. Yet you think it's bizarre that they charge rent to the football authorities for hiring it.

You're also right to speak of investment for a one off event by different levels of government as a missed opportunity but it was missed by the Scottish Govt and Glasgow Council, not by QP, who have historically spent an enormous sum on the creation and upkeep of Hampden. Do you think they should have held both of these public bodies to ransom? That's what you're accusing Queens of doing to Scottish football.

I think we can agree that we all deserve better than Hampden as it stands but whether that's a rebuild on site, a new build elsewhere (highly unlikely given the funding restraints you rightly point out) or simply alternating between Ibrox and Parkhead for all big games (please, no!), I still thing that Queen's Park as a club are not the culprits here and should not be accused of "taking the piss".

Incidentally, the reason why the North Stand can't be radically re-profiled was, at the time of the renovation, that the roof wasn't allowed to be higher. I think this was for daylight reaching the houses opposite. I doubt if that will have changed. I would be surprised (though can't be certain) if the same restriction applied to the east and west ends. ie. I think they could expand both of these is funding was there.

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

Article in today's record;

Queen's Park president warns SFA that Hampden exit for national team would leave Spiders on the brink

Alan Hutchison expects an answer from Stewart Regan before the end of the year on whether they will renew the current lease that expires in 2020.


Queen's Park president Alan Hutchison has warned the SFA that taking Scotland games away from Hampden would leave the country’s oldest club on the financial brink.
The Spiders chief expects an answer from Stewart Regan before the end of the year on whether they will renew the current lease that expires in 2020.


The SFA took out a 20-year rent deal - at £800,000 a year - after the £60 million Hampden rebuild with most of the cash paying of Queen’s Park debts.



Hampden has been home to Scottish football for 114 years and while Hutchison knows the decision will be based mainly on money, he hopes there is an element of sentiment.

Will Scotland move on? Regan hired a consultancy firm to investigate the pros and cons of a switch, which would mean taking national cup semi-finals and finals to other venues along with Scotland games.
Hutchison, in his second term as Queen’s Prak president, is deeply concerned and fears for the Spiders future and the Old Lady of Mount Florida if the SFA decide to relocate.
He was at Hampden last week as Queen’s Park were inducted into the Scottish Football Hall of Fame in the League One club’s 150th anniversary year.



SFA president Alan McRae presented Hutchison with the award yet couldn’t offer any hint at what way the decision will go that could have a huge bearing on Queen’s Park’s future.

Hutchison said: “The lease is up in 2020. We are having talks and have had for months. Nothing is decided yet.

“I gather the SFA board will state its position by the end of the year. There are so many options available to them.
“I hope they will stay. If they don’t stay it will not be good news for Queen’s Park. The football club would have to examine its finances very carefully.

“Since this version of Hampden was opened in 1903, Queens Park have relied on the income for its business model, whether run by ourselves or for the last 17 years by the SFA on the leasing agreement.
“If Queen’s Park did not have the income Hampden brings then Queen’s Park would not be able to operate our youth programmes and community programmes in the manner we currently do"

“Our model would have to change and then it would come down to what happens to this stadium. I don’t know the answer.

“At the end of the day it comes down to money but I’d like to think the history of Queen’s Park, what we have done for the game and what we continue to do might count for something.
“I’d hope we’d retain some degree of affection and support throughout the Scottish game. Is there a moral obligation to stay? I wouldn’t use the word moral in connection to football.
“I’ve supported Queens since 1960. A friend of mine gave me his scrapbook with pieces in about the financial troubles Queens got into because of the then modernisation of Hampden when they put in floodlights and it occurred to me that some things never change.”
Hampden has been slated for a lack of atmosphere and the state of the pitch but Hutchison still believes, when full, it is the best place for Scotland games and, on a weekend that will see the League Cup semi-finals staged there, national cups.
He said: “A lot of the criticism is unjustified. If you were at the England game or the Slovakia game there was no doubt that when Hampden is full the atmosphere is terrific

“In fact Harry Kane said something about it after the game. Criticism of parking and access are unjustified.

“There are three train stations, plenty of buses, roads to get in and out, parking is no worse than at any of the big stadiums in Glasgow.
“Yes, you have an oval stadium and some of the seats will be far away from the park but if you didn’t have an oval stadium you wouldn’t have got the Commonwealth Games and the investment that brought in to the city and the country.
“From a personal point of view, I think Scotland should have a national stadium. I accept if you have games that you’ll not attract big crowds then yes the atmosphere suffers.
“You can take them elsewhere which does happen. But for the important internationals, Scotland should be at Hampden and for the cup finals as well. The neutrality of Hampden is extremely important."

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you’ve been to Hampden in the last five years, you would know the north stand was expanded for the Commonwealth Games.

Only the facilities at the rear. The stand itself is exactly the same size and capacity.

[where'stheslope]

A new Scotland Stadium venue needs to be constructed out of any large urban area, where there is good rail and motorway links, with ample parking around the Stadium not up side streets or derelict areas ( I will never forgive the SFA for turning down Leyland Bathgate Site).

The area West of Falkirk and just South of Stirling would be ideal, great motorway and rail links from all over Scotland, and it is not heavily populated so would give the area a lift.

But as usual it has nothing to do with logic its all about Glasgow being the home of Scottish Football!!!!

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I still can't understand why Queen's Park's absolutely legitimate ownership of a Hampden is such "a nonsense" nor why them wanting to charge a rent to anyone who wants to hire it offends you so much. They're perfectly entitled to rent out their asset at an agreed price. Presumably if the price wasn't competitive the SFA / SPFL etc. would be speaking to Celtic, Rangers (the) or the SRU to negotiate an alternative. QP don't make profit for any shareholder or line anyone's pockets as you suggested but they aren't a charity so of course they charge for renting out their ground. How else do they fund its upkeep for these events?

You're right to point out that other (and undoubtedly better stadia) have been built in other countries with vast lottery and other public funds in recent years. This underlines how underfunded Hampden has been from these pots in comparison. Yet you think it's bizarre that they charge rent to the football authorities for hiring it.

You're also right to speak of investment for a one off event by different levels of government as a missed opportunity but it was missed by the Scottish Govt and Glasgow Council, not by QP, who have historically spent an enormous sum on the creation and upkeep of Hampden. Do you think they should have held both of these public bodies to ransom? That's what you're accusing Queens of doing to Scottish football.

I think we can agree that we all deserve better than Hampden as it stands but whether that's a rebuild on site, a new build elsewhere (highly unlikely given the funding restraints you rightly point out) or simply alternating between Ibrox and Parkhead for all big games (please, no!), I still thing that Queen's Park as a club are not the culprits here and should not be accused of "taking the piss".

Incidentally, the reason why the North Stand can't be radically re-profiled was, at the time of the renovation, that the roof wasn't allowed to be higher. I think this was for daylight reaching the houses opposite. I doubt if that will have changed. I would be surprised (though can't be certain) if the same restriction applied to the east and west ends. ie. I think they could expand both of these is funding was there.

It depends on your perspective. Queens Park would have absolutely no prospect of keeping Hampden going without the SFA and SPFL, outwith them they have no prospect of financing the stadium, as proved by their plea in the papers this week.

I stand by my point of view that their continued ownership of the ground, far from being a good thing, has and is holding it back, I'm not disputing their legal right to own it, their moral right to do so is far from clear, at least to me. Should Queens Park have held the Scottish government and Glasgow council to ransom over the Commonwealth games? ... absolutely, that would have made perfect business sense and its a different ball game from squeezing money out of their only tenant.

The Commonwealth games were a one off event and unlike the SFA / SPFL who have the option to remove their custom from Hampden Holyrood and GCC only had one option available if they wanted the games to come to Scotland / Glasgow and that was Hampden. The cost of building a brand new stadium was out of the question, because unlike the Manchester games stadium or the Olympic stadium in London there was absolutely no chance of finding a tenant or owner after the games for a 40,000 capacity athletics stadium.

The overall amount of money Holyrood and GCC were prepared to spend on the games has to be taken into consideration here, it was hundreds of millions of pounds. With a commitment of that magnitude I think Queens Park were in an extremely strong bargaining position when it came to persuading the politicians to commit to redeveloping the east and west ends of the stadium post games as part of the much trumpeted Commonwealth games 'legacy' ..... This 'legacy' being the only justification for the enormous amount of public money being spent.

Hampden was the fulcrum on which the games depended, no Hampden, no games .... in view of which why did Hampden not benefit one iota as a stadium from this 'legacy'? It was no skin off the nose of football if the games didn't take place, hell football isn't even a Commonwealth games sport. They spent 113 million quid on an F'ing Velodrome because we had one guy who was good on a bike, which apart from cycling is currently used for those massive Scottish sports Basketball and Badminton .... so don't tell me Queens Park couldn't have squeezed 50 million quid out of them for a Hampden redevelopment .... the fact that they couldn't tells me everything I need to know about Queens Park's custodianship of Hampden Park.

[SirDavidsNapper]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Only the facilities at the rear. The stand itself is exactly the same size and capacity.

Yeah they bolted a glass curtain wall on the back. It's now world class.