Euros 2028 and Hampden

[NAE NOOKIE]

In recent years we had £14,000,000 spent on transforming Hampden into an athletics stadium, with no discernible lasting benefit to the stadium.

Then it was a Euros venue, nothing changed, barely a penny was spent on it.

Now it's been chosen to host 4, possibly 6 games, at the 2028 Euros. How UEFA can see it as suitable venue is anybody's guess, but there it is. The UK government will no doubt make a big play of the alleged 2.5 billion quid the Euros will bring to the UK / Ireland economy, the question is, will any of this alleged economic windfall make it's way towards turning it from the basic hole it is now into a proper modern 21st century stadium?

[Hibby70]

Nope

[NAE NOOKIE]

Nope

Is almost certainly the correct answer .. sadly.

[tamig]

Behind the goals is shambolic and the stands need to be brought in before this tournament starts. Where the funding comes from is another matter.

[Pretty Boy]

The renovations that have taken place at Hampden when it hosts major football events such as the recent and future Euro games, the Champions League Final and Europa League Final are largely on things not seen or often even considered by the rank and file fan.

As an example the ability for team and match official's transport to go straight into a private, protected area to disembark. Some of the old perimeter fencing and walls were also removed at Hampden and replaced by 'moat' areas to meet the 5 star criteria. There also has to be a minimum capacity of 1000 in both lounges and seating for VIPS, team delegates and other hospitality. Things like doping control rooms with restricted and secure access and adeqaute space for TV studios for multiple national and commercial broadcasters and so on also have to be considered. There is also a requirement for a minimum number of 5 star hotel beds within a very small radius of the ground (1000 beds for the Champions League Final!). That's probably why dumping a national stadium in a field somewhere a few miles north of Stirling as is often suggested is a non starter.

There are some things that fans may well notice (minimum capacity of 50K, minimum pitch size, internationally understood signage, minimum floodlight lux etc) but a lot of it simply isn't geared towards us. However much is spent on Hampden will largely go unseen by us regular punters as, on the spectating side, it's all geared towards keeping the blazers and their guests happy and much of the rest will be spent on keeping the facilities for players, officials and so on up to scratch.

No doubt the stadium needs work for the fans done on it, very few would surely argue otherwise but UEFA see is as a suitable venue because, by their criteria, it is.

[EdinMike]

It should have been bulldozed and rebuilt when it was being discussed, we could have had a national stadium to be proud of by 2028.

[offshorehibby]

Over all the renovations in my lifetime we've spent a pittance on it. It should have been demolished years ago with 60k state of the art centre for Scottish football.

[RyeSloan]

It should have been bulldozed and rebuilt when it was being discussed, we could have had a national stadium to be proud of by 2028.

Yup.

I know the ownership etc. might be a barrier but honestly I see no reason why the Scottish Government shouldn’t just pony up and get a new national stadium built…almost every other western footballing nation has managed it yet we are stuck with Hampden (and to a lesser extent Murrayfield).

If they can find many millions to fund a one off bike race event then with a wee bit of thought and planning and bringing various parties together surely we could find a solution.

[Since90+2]

Yup.

I know the ownership etc. might be a barrier but honestly I see no reason why the Scottish Government shouldn’t just pony up and get a new national stadium built…almost every other western footballing nation has managed it yet we are stuck with Hampden (and to a lesser extent Murrayfield).

If they can find many millions to fund a one off bike race event then with a wee bit of thought and planning and bringing various parties together surely we could find a solution.

A new state of the art 60,000 seater will probably cost north of £500 million. I'd love a new Hampden too, but with the current cost of living crisis I don't see the Scottish Government allocating half a billion quid to build a new stadium when we already have one that's fit for purpose (people might not like it very much, but it's still a decent enough stadium, not as if it's crumbling). Just because it might not be the Aviva or Principality doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of the Scottish game for the majority of the time.

Personally I'd rather that £500 million or so was spent helping the most in need families in the country.

[Hibby70]

To save on architect and civil engineer costs the SFA have decided to replicate the Broomloan Stand design for the West rebuild.

[overdrive]

Yup.

I know the ownership etc. might be a barrier but honestly I see no reason why the Scottish Government shouldn’t just pony up and get a new national stadium built…almost every other western footballing nation has managed it yet we are stuck with Hampden (and to a lesser extent Murrayfield).

If they can find many millions to fund a one off bike race event then with a wee bit of thought and planning and bringing various parties together surely we could find a solution.

That's why sweet FA has been done... we have two national stadiums. If the government coughed up money for a national stadium it would have to be a combined national stadium. The west of Scotland footballing community (and to a lesser degree some of the footballing community in the rest of Scotland) just wouldn't accept it if it wasn't Hampdump and a good proportion of those wouldn't accept it even if it was Hampdump if rugby was played there. I suspect a lot of rugby fans wouldn't want rugby internationals played primarily in Glasgow either.

It was an opportunity missed to have one national stadium when the SFA were considering Murrayfield but were effectively bribed by that guy involved with Queens Park. Some money could have been spent on Murrayfield (which is in nowhere near the state Hampdump is in) to make it a really good stadium.

[Since90+2]

That's why sweet FA has been done... we have two national stadiums. If the government coughed up money for a national stadium it would have to be a combined national stadium. The west of Scotland footballing community (and to a lesser degree some of the footballing community in the rest of Scotland) just wouldn't accept it if it wasn't Hampdump and a good proportion of those wouldn't accept it even if it was Hampdump if rugby was played there. I suspect a lot of rugby fans wouldn't want rugby internationals played primarily in Glasgow either.

It was an opportunity missed to have one national stadium when the SFA were considering Murrayfield but were effectively bribed by that guy involved with Queens Park. Some money could have been spent on Murrayfield (which is in nowhere near the state Hampdump is in) to make a really good stadium.

Murrayfield is an older stadium than Hampden, it's closer to the pitch but it's not exactly in great nick itself. I've watched games there in the past and it's not great.

Is it better than Hampden? Probably, but I think some east cost fans go abit overboard with it.

Plus I stay 5 minutes from it and its a pain in the arse to get parked when games and concerts are on. So that's a good enough reason for me not to want its use expanded 😂

[ancient hibee]

When Hampden was redesigned as all seated I think the plans were agreed by guys who had never watched a match from anywhere but the best seats at old Hampden. Most of the sight lines are terrible.

[Since452]

Personally think Murrayfield is a magnificent stadium and the tram/rail links are superb. Been there loads of times for gigs and the rugby and each time i've been impressed. It puts Hampden to shame in so many ways.

[CentreLine]

The renovations that have taken place at Hampden when it hosts major football events such as the recent and future Euro games, the Champions League Final and Europa League Final are largely on things not seen or often even considered by the rank and file fan.

As an example the ability for team and match official's transport to go straight into a private, protected area to disembark. Some of the old perimeter fencing and walls were also removed at Hampden and replaced by 'moat' areas to meet the 5 star criteria. There also has to be a minimum capacity of 1000 in both lounges and seating for VIPS, team delegates and other hospitality. Things like doping control rooms with restricted and secure access and adeqaute space for TV studios for multiple national and commercial broadcasters and so on also have to be considered. There is also a requirement for a minimum number of 5 star hotel beds within a very small radius of the ground (1000 beds for the Champions League Final!). That's probably why dumping a national stadium in a field somewhere a few miles north of Stirling as is often suggested is a non starter.

There are some things that fans may well notice (minimum capacity of 50K, minimum pitch size, internationally understood signage, minimum floodlight lux etc) but a lot of it simply isn't geared towards us. However much is spent on Hampden will largely go unseen by us regular punters as, on the spectating side, it's all geared towards keeping the blazers and their guests happy and much of the rest will be spent on keeping the facilities for players, officials and so on up to scratch.

No doubt the stadium needs work for the fans done on it, very few would surely argue otherwise but UEFA see is as a suitable venue because, by their criteria, it is.

Brilliant and informative post. 👌

[Since90+2]

Personally think Murrayfield is a magnificent stadium and the tram/rail links are superb. Been there loads of times for gigs and the rugby and each time i've been impressed. It puts Hampden to shame in so many ways.

It seems a bit of an odd stadium to me.

It just doesn't seem that big, I know that sounds daft as it's got a huge capacity, it's got 7,500 more seats than Celtic Park but, to me atleast, seems smaller. It's also 17,500 bigger than Ibrox and again just seems smaller and not as intimidating as either Ibrox or Celtic Park.

It's a good stadium no doubt, better than Hampden, but it's not a patch on something like the Principality.

[JimBHibees]

Personally think Murrayfield is a magnificent stadium and the tram/rail links are superb. Been there loads of times for gigs and the rugby and each time i've been impressed. It puts Hampden to shame in so many ways.

Yes it does. Night and day

[Pretty Boy]

Personally think Murrayfield is a magnificent stadium and the tram/rail links are superb. Been there loads of times for gigs and the rugby and each time i've been impressed. It puts Hampden to shame in so many ways.

The big issue for football at Murrayfield is broadly the same as it is at Hampden. The seats behind the goals are miles away from the pitch, it's a particular problem in the lower tier. Probably less noticeable at rugby because of the huge in goal areas at Murrayfield comparative to a lot of other rugby stadiums. Same issue applies on the main stand side because of the running track, you can see what I mean in the image below:

https://twitter.com/crmpicco/status/924376469840809984/photo/1

Not as bad as Hampden of course because of the steeper rake of the seats and the upper tier but I'm still not convinced Murrayfield makes a particularly great football stadium. The one obvious benefit is the public transport links with the tram stop as good as on site and the extensive outside areas for creating fans zones and the like.

[Since90+2]

The big issue for football at Murrayfield is broadly the same as it is at Hampden. The seats behind the goals are miles away from the pitch, it's a particular problem in the lower tier. Probably less noticeable at rugby because of the huge in goal areas at Murrayfield comparative to a lot of other rugby stadiums. Same issue applies on the main stand side because of the running track, you can see what I mean in the image below:

https://twitter.com/crmpicco/status/924376469840809984/photo/1

Not as bad as Hampden of course because of the steeper rake of the seats and the upper tier but I'm still not convinced Murrayfield makes a particularly great football stadium. The one obvious benefit is the public transport links with the tram stop as good as on site and the extensive outside areas for creating fans zones and the like.

The main stand is absolutely miles from the pitch at Murrayfield.

The north and south stands at Hampden are closer to the pitch than the equivalent at Murrayfield.

[Pretty Boy]

It seems a bit of an odd stadium to me.

It just doesn't seem that big, I know that sounds daft as it's got a huge capacity, it's got 7,500 more seats than Celtic Park but, to me atleast, seems smaller. It's also 17,500 bigger than Ibrox and again just seems smaller and not as intimidating as either Ibrox or Celtic Park.

It's a good stadium no doubt, better than Hampden, but it's not a patch on something like the Principality.

I think it's a very good stadium for what it's primarily designed for, even if the corners connecting the East Stand are a bit of dogs dinner.

I just don't think it's a football stadium. I think the likes of Wembley, Tottenham and the Prinicpality have nailed being multi event, multi sport stadiums. I'm not sure Murryafield works as well as those for certain sports because of some of the factors I mentioned above and the field dimensions meaning the pitch has to be 'off centre'.

[PatHead]

Don't see why both Hampden and Murrayfield couldn't have been used.

[Since452]

The big issue for football at Murrayfield is broadly the same as it is at Hampden. The seats behind the goals are miles away from the pitch, it's a particular problem in the lower tier. Probably less noticeable at rugby because of the huge in goal areas at Murrayfield comparative to a lot of other rugby stadiums. Same issue applies on the main stand side because of the running track, you can see what I mean in the image below:

https://twitter.com/crmpicco/status/924376469840809984/photo/1

Not as bad as Hampden of course because of the steeper rake of the seats and the upper tier but I'm still not convinced Murrayfield makes a particularly great football stadium. The one obvious benefit is the public transport links with the tram stop as good as on site and the extensive outside areas for creating fans zones and the like.

True. If the main stand and stands behind the goals/posts were closer then it would be unbelievable for football. Perfect for rugby right enough. Exactly what it was designed for to be fair.

[1875Sean]

I seen the hosts don’t automatically qualify however will be 2 spots available, I wonder how they will decide who gets them if is more than 2 countries that don’t qualify, can see England and maybe Scotland but wouldn’t hold out much hope for wales, Ireland or N.Ireland

[RyeSloan]

A new state of the art 60,000 seater will probably cost north of £500 million. I'd love a new Hampden too, but with the current cost of living crisis I don't see the Scottish Government allocating half a billion quid to build a new stadium when we already have one that's fit for purpose (people might not like it very much, but it's still a decent enough stadium, not as if it's crumbling). Just because it might not be the Aviva or Principality doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of the Scottish game for the majority of the time.

Personally I'd rather that £500 million or so was spent helping the most in need families in the country.

You can make that argument for any government spending not assigned to those ‘most in need’. It’s a bit of a straw man. Otherwise why do we spend tens, if not hundred of millions on arts and heritage and the likes? Or, dare I say it, spend your £500m on two ferries?

I’d argue that a genuine multi use, for for purpose stadium (Tottenham are the latest example of that) could in fact be seen as an investment not a cost. The benefits to the economy of a genuine world class stadium being used properly could be vast. It would be far from a vanity project that’s for sure.

To me that’s what governments are for. Providing the type of national infrastructure that’s seriously difficult to deliver by any other means.

Sadly in Scotland we have the East / West, Football / Rugby divide that means the solution will not manifest itself so we are stuck with a decrepit national football stadium and an ageing (if not quite as bad) national rugby stadium.

Again for me that’s where government needs to step in and make a solution happen.

There is of course no simple answer as the sensible place to have a national stadium is in the capital yet the heavy weights in the football world are in Glasgow.

[GreenCastle]

Maxwell saying some minor changes but nothing substantial.

Basically no we aren’t changing the layout !

Clowns running the game.

[He's here!]

When Hampden was redesigned as all seated I think the plans were agreed by guys who had never watched a match from anywhere but the best seats at old Hampden. Most of the sight lines are terrible.

Apart from the main stand, I don't think it was really 're-designed' as much as simply bolting seats on to the old terracing. Cheap option, hence the fact it's an exceptionally poor national stadium in comparison to those in England, Wales and Ireland.

Murrayfield's better in the sense they actually built new stands to replace the terracing, but they were built in different eras so it's all a bit unwieldy and Scotland really lags behind when it comes to stadia fit to host major tournaments. Murrayfield was actually a better stadium back in the terracing days. There are several English club stadia which are light years ahead of Hampden and sadly the only reason Hampden will be getting used is because they need to have a Scottish 'leg' of the tournament.

[JimBHibees]

Apart from the main stand, I don't think it was really 're-designed' as much as simply bolting seats on to the old terracing. Cheap option, hence the fact it's an exceptionally poor national stadium in comparison to those in England, Wales and Ireland.

Murrayfield's better in the sense they actually built new stands to replace the terracing, but they were built in different eras so it's all a bit unwieldy and Scotland really lags behind when it comes to stadia fit to host major tournaments. Murrayfield was actually a better stadium back in the terracing days. There are several English club stadia which are light years ahead of Hampden and sadly the only reason Hampden will be getting used is because they need to have a Scottish 'leg' of the tournament.

The fact Hampden is in Glasgow is probably the biggest reason.

[Since90+2]

You can make that argument for any government spending not assigned to those ‘most in need’. It’s a bit of a straw man. Otherwise why do we spend tens, if not hundred of millions on arts and heritage and the likes? Or, dare I say it, spend your £500m on two ferries?

I’d argue that a genuine multi use, for for purpose stadium (Tottenham are the latest example of that) could in fact be seen as an investment not a cost. The benefits to the economy of a genuine world class stadium being used properly could be vast. It would be far from a vanity project that’s for sure.

To me that’s what governments are for. Providing the type of national infrastructure that’s seriously difficult to deliver by any other means.

Sadly in Scotland we have the East / West, Football / Rugby divide that means the solution will not manifest itself so we are stuck with a decrepit national football stadium and an ageing (if not quite as bad) national rugby stadium.

Again for me that’s where government needs to step in and make a solution happen.

There is of course no simple answer as the sensible place to have a national stadium is in the capital yet the heavy weights in the football world are in Glasgow.

It's not a straw man at all, it's an opinion. Big difference.

[overdrive]

The big issue for football at Murrayfield is broadly the same as it is at Hampden. The seats behind the goals are miles away from the pitch, it's a particular problem in the lower tier. Probably less noticeable at rugby because of the huge in goal areas at Murrayfield comparative to a lot of other rugby stadiums. Same issue applies on the main stand side because of the running track, you can see what I mean in the image below:

https://twitter.com/crmpicco/status/924376469840809984/photo/1

Not as bad as Hampden of course because of the steeper rake of the seats and the upper tier but I'm still not convinced Murrayfield makes a particularly great football stadium. The one obvious benefit is the public transport links with the tram stop as good as on site and the extensive outside areas for creating fans zones and the like.

Behind the goals at Murrayfield isn't actually that bad. I was there for the Man Utd game in the summer and was in the lower tier a few rows from the front. The view was decent. A comparable seat at Hampden, where I have been before, you wouldn't be able to see the goals at the other end. I've just checked my phone for photos I took and the sides don't look bad either. If I can work out how to upload photos to here on my phone, I'll post one that shows the touchline and the further away from the pitch stand. Again, at worst comparable to the space between the South Stand and the pitch at Hampden.

Edit: hopefully the photos will be uploaded:

View of the gap between behind the goals stand (South) and pitch and view of the West Stand (side stand with biggest gap between it and the pitch):
27285

View of the other side stand (East) and view up to the goal at the North Stand:
27286

[WeeRussell]

Probably had at least the top 3 best sporting atmospheres of my life in Hampden. And it far from bothers me that it’s not a modern stadium.

It could definitely be improved, and is a pain in the arse to get to from Edinburgh.

But ultimately I think people go overboard.

[Stairway 2 7]

The main stand is absolutely miles from the pitch at Murrayfield.

The north and south stands at Hampden are closer to the pitch than the equivalent at Murrayfield.

North and South are fine. East and west are abhorrent. Stuttgart shows how you fix it, knock the two stands down and bring closer.

No need for anything near £500 million figures as South stand is housing everything needed as is. If anything being able to add hospitality to two extra stands would be better financially.

[Trinity Hibee]

A few years ago when Hampden purchase was being discussed it was absolutely the perfect time to move Scotland football to Murrayfield. It made sense in every way apart from the history. Such a backwards move by all involved.

[Mark05]

North and South are fine. East and west are abhorrent. Stuttgart shows how you fix it, knock the two stands down and bring closer.

No need for anything near £500 million figures as South stand is housing everything needed as is. If anything being able to add hospitality to two extra stands would be better financially.This is what I would do,And if done well most people I think would be happy with, as it wouldn't cost hundreds of millions.The sad thing is if they don't do it now for this tournament then they won't do it for a long long time

[Since90+2]

This is what I would do,And if done well most people I think would be happy with, as it wouldn't cost hundreds of millions.The sad thing is if they don't do it now for this tournament then they won't do it for a long long time

To completely knock down two stands and rebuild them whilst changing the location of the foundations plus hospitality boxes probably would cost hundreds of millions. You'd then need to link the brand new stands to the existing historic stands in the north and sound, both of which are at different pitches and at different heights. It would be a huge development.

I'm sure Celtic have said to redevelop their main stand it would be £100+ for that one stand, and that wouldn't involve moving the foundations.

[Keith_M]

The main stand is absolutely miles from the pitch at Murrayfield.

The north and south stands at Hampden are closer to the pitch than the equivalent at Murrayfield.


If an international size football pitch was placed in Murrayfield, the north and south stands would both be 30 yards behind the goals.

Directly behind the goals at Hampden, the nearest seating is 35 yards.

Not a massive difference.

[RyeSloan]

It's not a straw man at all, it's an opinion. Big difference.

It can be both you know ;-)

The SG putting funding (doesn’t all have to be public funds either btw) and more importantly the effort and building a consensus around getting a new national stadium built does not necessarily mean that same money would be available for spending on those most in need. Or that money for those in need would not be available because a national stadium was being built. Hence your straw man.

I’m sure you know the difference between one off capital spending on infrastructure versus ongoing benefit and other spending on poverty alleviation etc. but hey ho.

Long story short Hampden is a dump, badly needs replaced and is in general a bit embarrassing for a national stadium. I for one would like the powers that be to get their finger oot of their proverbial and sort that.

[Ringothedog]

In the East and West I would build 2 tier stands of about 12-14 k each a lot closer to the pitch. It would make it look better only opening the bottom tiers for games with smaller attendances .

[Since90+2]

It can be both you know ;-)

The SG putting funding (doesn’t all have to be public funds either btw) and more importantly the effort and building a consensus around getting a new national stadium built does not necessarily mean that same money would be available for spending on those most in need. Or that money for those in need would not be available because a national stadium was being built. Hence your straw man.

I’m sure you know the difference between one off capital spending on infrastructure versus ongoing benefit and other spending on poverty alleviation etc. but hey ho.

Long story short Hampden is a dump, badly needs replaced and is in general a bit embarrassing for a national stadium. I for one would like the powers that be to get their finger oot of their proverbial and sort that.

Hampden is not a dump, it has the highest classification Uefa can allocate a stadium. You personally not like it, but that doesn't make the stadium a dump.

[Stairway 2 7]

To completely knock down two stands and rebuild them whilst changing the location of the foundations plus hospitality boxes probably would cost hundreds of millions. You'd then need to link the brand new stands to the existing historic stands in the north and sound, both of which are at different pitches and at different heights. It would be a huge development.

I'm sure Celtic have said to redevelop their main stand it would be £100+ for that one stand, and that wouldn't involve moving the foundations.

Stuttgart was £55 million in 2011. Maxwell said this year he thought it would be about 100 euros to do Hampden. Would need money from government, council and sfa.

The 1000 classical music venue up town got £25 million from Scot Gov and Edinburgh Council, but that's for them and not us I suppose

[ScottB]

There won’t be any public money spent on stadiums other than perhaps the one in Northern Ireland to ensure they have one stadium.

[Since90+2]

Stuttgart was £55 million in 2011. Maxwell said this year he thought it would be about 100 euros to do Hampden. Would need money from government, council and sfa.

The 1000 classical music venue up town got £25 million from Scot Gov and Edinburgh Council, but that's for them and not us I suppose

If Stuttgart cost £55 million 12 years ago, and that's with German efficiency, then the cost in 2024 or beyond would be miles above that. Materials alone have probably atleast doubled or more likely tripled in that time.

[Stairway 2 7]

If Stuttgart cost £55 million 12 years ago, and that's with German efficiency, then the cost in 2024 or beyond would be miles above that. Materials alone have probably atleast doubled or more likely tripled in that time.

As I said in March Maxwell said the estimate is €100 million, which is about £85 million.

A large number but its probably the only time we'll get an international tournament. They paid out £25mil of the £75mil for a tiny classical music venue, uci cycling was £70 million last year, Scot gov ended up spending almost £60mil on that

Difference between this and the cycling spend is this will be used for decades for football and other events.

[Eyrie]

Do we even need Hampden?

There are two good stadia (with admittedly obnoxious owners) in Glasgow, Murrayfield and Easter Road in Edinburgh and opportunities for both Dundee and Aberdeen. So that's the international games taken care of and a chance for fans around Scotland to see Scotland play.

The above stadia can also be used for cup finals. If one Ugly Sister is involved then play it at the other's ground, and if both are involved then alternate it with a 50-50 split. If no Ugly Sisters are involved, then a smaller stadium can be used if appropriate.

[Since90+2]

As I said in March Maxwell said the estimate is €100 million, which is about £85 million.

A large number but its probably the only time we'll get an international tournament. They paid out £25mil of the £75mil for a tiny classical music venue, uci cycling was £70 million last year, Scot gov ended up spending almost £60mil on that

Difference between this and the cycling spend is this will be used for decades for football and other events.

I can't remember ever seeing a figure being quoted for large scale redevelopment at Hampden. As far as I know it's never been given consideration.

Do you have a link for that ?

[Keith_M]

Does anybody know how much public money was spent on rebuilding Wembley, plus the public infrastructure projects in the vicinity connected to the rebuild?

The original estimate was £160M... for the stadium rebuild alone... but. I think that was vastly underestimated and additional funding was required.

[Since90+2]

Does anybody know how much public money was spent on rebuilding Wembley, plus the public infrastructure projects in the vicinity connected to the rebuild?

The original estimate was £160M... for the stadium rebuild alone... but. I think that was vastly underestimated and additional funding was required.

Not sure about Wembley but Tottenham's new stadium was 1.1 billion, and that was built years ago when costs and materials in construction were far lower.

Any work on Hampden would likely not take place for years. Using the example of Stuttgart and the 90 million cost, it would likely be 15 years or so between that being built and Hampden work being carried out.

Anyone who thinks Hampden would cost roughly the same a decade and a half later is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Pretty Boy]

Does anybody know how much public money was spent on rebuilding Wembley, plus the public infrastructure projects in the vicinity connected to the rebuild?

The original estimate was £160M... for the stadium rebuild alone... but. I think that was vastly underestimated and additional funding was required.

Wembley cost almost £800M (adjusted for inflation that's about £1.2bn now).

The FA took out a huge loan to pay for the bulk of that and that is scheduled to be fully repaid next year. Sport England (lottery funding) put in £120M and the govt through 2 separate bodies (Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport and the London Development Agency) gave just over £40M.

I think the latter was largely aimed at paying for the infrastructure improvements in the surrounding areas but that's a bit of reading between the lines so I could be wrong.

For the record £3.5M of UK govt money was given to aid with the redevelopment of Hampden in the early 90s with a further £59M of lottery funding given to help fund the new main stand in 1997.

[Stairway 2 7]

I can't remember ever seeing a figure being quoted for large scale redevelopment at Hampden. As far as I know it's never been given consideration.

Do you have a link for that ?
Inflation would bring the £55mil Stuttgart cost to 75mil but I guess the extra increase is materials ect.

Northern Ireland are estimating their new 35,000 stadium from scratch will be £100 million, that's including everything Hampden wouldn't need like hospitality, media centre, changing rooms, medical facilities, offices ect. No way two non centre stands costs much more than that

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/66009452.amp
And, with the best will in the world, if someone can give us 100-odd million euros, we have far more important things to do with that in terms of growing the game and opportunities to play and transforming lives than doing the stadium

[Bridge hibs]

Planning drawings for a new national stadium with the 2028 Euros or 2030 World Cup in mind showed it with 'Kop-style' stands, a retractable roof that lit up and extensive work done to modernise and improve the concourses and area around the ground itself.

It's estimated such a project would cost anywhere between £200-£500million, and would require government investment.

When the SFA bought Hampden from Queen's Park in 2018, they vowed to renovate the stadium with a 2030 World Cup bid in mind.

[Bridge hibs]

I can't remember ever seeing a figure being quoted for large scale redevelopment at Hampden. As far as I know it's never been given consideration.

Do you have a link for that ?The Stuttgart stuff (Glasgow Times 2018)

THE cost of redeveloping Hampden along similar lines to the Mercedes-Benz Arena in Stuttgart could cost up to £90million according to the architect behind the project for the German side

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16842775.stuttgart-style-hampden-refurb-cost-90m-warns-architect-behind-project/#:~:text=THE%20cost%20of%20redeveloping%20Hampden, project%20for%20the%20German%20side.

[Since90+2]

Inflation would bring the £55mil Stuttgart cost to 75mil but I guess the extra increase is materials ect.

Northern Ireland are estimating their new 35,000 stadium from scratch will be £100 million, that's including everything Hampden wouldn't need like hospitality, media centre, changing rooms, medical facilities, offices ect. No way two non centre stands costs much more than that

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/football/66009452.amp
And, with the best will in the world, if someone can give us 100-odd million euros, we have far more important things to do with that in terms of growing the game and opportunities to play and transforming lives than doing the stadium

Again, he's using the Stuttgart cost as a comparison which is irrelevant.

Anyway going in in circles for something that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Stairway 2 7]

The Stuttgart stuff (Glasgow Times 2018)

THE cost of redeveloping Hampden along similar lines to the Mercedes-Benz Arena in Stuttgart could cost up to £90million according to the architect behind the project for the German side

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16842775.stuttgart-style-hampden-refurb-cost-90m-warns-architect-behind-project/#:~:text=THE%20cost%20of%20redeveloping%20Hampden, project%20for%20the%20German%20side.

Not really like for like as Scotland would only need a simple stand

"We included a gymnastics stadium for another 2000 people, where people got to watch handball or basketball for instance, and we also created a big business lounge where nearly every day there is a conference on. The important thing is to make the stadium useable during the week,"

"The gym we had was 20 million euros, and extending the roof was 10 million euros, so it depends a lot what you want to do"

[Dashing Bob S]

Bulldoze the tip and build a Tesco or IKEA. Murrayfield should be the national stadium for everything.

[JimBHibees]

Do we even need Hampden?

There are two good stadia (with admittedly obnoxious owners) in Glasgow, Murrayfield and Easter Road in Edinburgh and opportunities for both Dundee and Aberdeen. So that's the international games taken care of and a chance for fans around Scotland to see Scotland play.

The above stadia can also be used for cup finals. If one Ugly Sister is involved then play it at the other's ground, and if both are involved then alternate it with a 50-50 split. If no Ugly Sisters are involved, then a smaller stadium can be used if appropriate.

Great point

[raeburnhibs]

Bulldoze the tip and build a Tesco or IKEA. Murrayfield should be the national stadium for everything.

Murrayfield is pretty **** really

[Iain G]

Not really like for like as Scotland would only need a simple stand

"We included a gymnastics stadium for another 2000 people, where people got to watch handball or basketball for instance, and we also created a big business lounge where nearly every day there is a conference on. The important thing is to make the stadium useable during the week,"

"The gym we had was 20 million euros, and extending the roof was 10 million euros, so it depends a lot what you want to do"

What you propose is easily an £100m + project in the current market, with price of materials, shortage of akilled labour, demolition costs (god knows how the stands are all interconnected), design cost, logistics, taking the pitch up etc etc. Not an easy project. Oh and throw in managerial incompetence in the SFA as well 😁

[Stairway 2 7]

What you propose is easily an £100m + project in the current market, with price of materials, shortage of akilled labour, demolition costs (god knows how the stands are all interconnected), design cost, logistics, taking the pitch up etc etc. Not an easy project. Oh and throw in managerial incompetence in the SFA as well 😁

If Belfast can build a stadium for £100mil from scratch with gyms, hospitality and changing rooms, pitch ect I'm sure we could do 2 stands. Maxwell and the architect both said around 100. There would have to be political will and there isn't. They gave £25 of our money to a classical venue not needed and £60 mil to the cycling event this year so not unprecedented, but football has never been I priority

[JimBHibees]

If Belfast can build a stadium for £100mil from scratch with gyms, hospitality and changing rooms, pitch ect I'm sure we could do 2 stands. Maxwell and the architect both said around 100. There would have to be political will and there isn't. They gave £25 of our money to a classical venue not needed and £60 mil to the cycling event this year so not unprecedented, but football has never been I priority

Northern Ireland were effectively given billions by the U.K. Government recently

[Stairway 2 7]

Northern Ireland were effectively given billions by the U.K. Government recently

Scotland got about the same per head last in our block grant. This is more about political will. Scot gov just spent £60 mil on cycling championships with no real bricks and mortar legacy. I generally think infrastructure projects are good for the economy anyway.

[Nicho87]

If they’re not going to re-develop the actual structure/ seating for euro 2028

Imo they never will.

Awful national stadium

[Moulin Yarns]

Scotland got about the same per head last in our block grant. This is more about political will. Scot gov just spent £60 mil on cycling championships with no real bricks and mortar legacy. I generally think infrastructure projects are good for the economy anyway.

Can you give a source to the £60m for the UCI event because all I've heard was £8m

[Pretty Boy]

Can you give a source to the £60m for the UCI event because all I've heard was £8m

£8M was the fund to upgrade cycling infrastructure in Scotland as part of a legacy of the event.

The Scottish Government contributed £36M to the total costs of the event and Glasgow City Council contributed just under £16M. The forecast economic benefit to Glasgow and beyond was approx. £67M so you could argue it was money well spent depending on how you measure such things.

The details were made public in the respective budgets of both organisations.

[Stairway 2 7]

£8M was the fund to upgrade cycling infrastructure in Scotland as part of a legacy of the event.

The Scottish Government contributed £36M to the total costs of the event and Glasgow City Council contributed just under £16M. The forecast economic benefit to Glasgow and beyond was approx. £67M so you could argue it was money well spent depending on how you measure such things.

The details were made public in the respective budgets of both organisations.

Think there was a reported 10m overspend also. I actually do think it was money well spent for various reasons. As I say I think infrastructure projects are also money well spent in an economy, so the actual costs aren't black and white

[GreenCastle]

I actually don’t think Hampden or Murrayfield are very good for spectator experience. Both far away from pitch and facilities dated

Ok both on their day can generate a decent atmosphere but can you imagine if both were closer to the pitch and how loud the atmosphere would be then!!

Both rugby and football I think would both agree both stadiums need updated and upgraded but lack of ££ seems to mean we are stuck with an average football stadium and slightly better rugby stadium.

I wouldn’t want all football at Murrayfield / the thought of Rangers and Celtic fans coming through for finals to Edinburgh would be terrible.

[Pretty Boy]

I actually don’t think Hampden or Murrayfield are very good for spectator experience. Both far away from pitch and facilities dated

Ok both on their day can generate a decent atmosphere but can you imagine if both were closer to the pitch and how loud the atmosphere would be then!!

Both rugby and football I think would both agree both stadiums need updated and upgraded but lack of ££ seems to mean we are stuck with an average football stadium and slightly better rugby stadium.

I wouldn’t want all football at Murrayfield / the thought of Rangers and Celtic fans coming through for finals to Edinburgh would be terrible.

After the demise of the Home Nations Championship and the short lived Rous Cup there was consideration given as to whether Scotland needed a national football stadium. As I said in a post above money was in short supply and the government went from offering nothing to a payment of just £3.5M to a project that cost over £12M. When it came to the new main stand lottery funding plugged a big chunk of the gap (as it has for a lot of sports funding which was at least part of the point of it when it was conceived post the GB Olympics teams disastrous performance at Atlanta 1996). At the time David Murray also proposed Ibrox become a de facto national stadium for the Scottish national team and Murrayfield put forward a proposal as well (largely because Murrayfield had no government funding and was paid for with loans and various debenture issues, they wanted a rent paying tenant). Unsurprisingly the committee of the SFA, then SFL and Queens Park made the decision to press ahead with redevelopment at Hampden.

I'm not sure we really need a national football and rugby stadium. Both Murrayfield and Hampden lie empty for the vast majority of the year. Murrayfield needs it's full capacity (for sport) 4 or 5 times a year and Hampden even less so. We have a football stadium with a bigger capacity than Hampden already and another with a comparable capacity, with rugby there is simply no need for another stadium close to that capacity as the demand just isn't there week in, week out. Football really doesn't need a fixed national stadium, it works for Italy and Spain and we have football stadia that can host semi finals, finals and internationals were demand varies from 10-20K (Easter Road or Rugby Park) through to 65K+ if we were to rent Murrayfield as a one off. It's probably more complex for rugby simply because they don't have a club ground that can accommodate the spike in demand that happens in the spring and autumn compared to the demand for club rugby and I don't think any football grounds are really suitable.

The solution is probably a new purpose built multi event stadium but that comes with a multitude of issues around location, cost, history etc etc. I think those issues are why we will continue along with the status quo for some time yet.

[superfurryhibby]

You can make that argument for any government spending not assigned to those ‘most in need’. It’s a bit of a straw man. Otherwise why do we spend tens, if not hundred of millions on arts and heritage and the likes? Or, dare I say it, spend your £500m on two ferries?

I’d argue that a genuine multi use, for for purpose stadium (Tottenham are the latest example of that) could in fact be seen as an investment not a cost. The benefits to the economy of a genuine world class stadium being used properly could be vast. It would be far from a vanity project that’s for sure.

To me that’s what governments are for. Providing the type of national infrastructure that’s seriously difficult to deliver by any other means.

Sadly in Scotland we have the East / West, Football / Rugby divide that means the solution will not manifest itself so we are stuck with a decrepit national football stadium and an ageing (if not quite as bad) national rugby stadium.

Again for me that’s where government needs to step in and make a solution happen.

There is of course no simple answer as the sensible place to have a national stadium is in the capital yet the heavy weights in the football world are in Glasgow.

Arts and heritage bring in vast indirect revenues through tourism?

That's why citizens of Edinburgh and many other tourism hotspots have to suffer over crowded streets, slow public transport, over inflated house prices and exorbitant food and drink prices.

The ferries you mention are vital infrastructure projects, they connect a lot of people and are essential.

I do agree that government needs to invest, but a football stadium that is used ten-fifteen times /year or so isn't high on my list of priorities. The SFA should look at modern ways of raising funds for stadium development before the begging bowl comes out (sponsorship and commercial development).

[Since90+2]

Arts and heritage bring in vast indirect revenues through tourism?

That's why citizens of Edinburgh and many other tourism hotspots have to suffer over crowded streets, slow public transport, over inflated house prices and exorbitant food and drink prices.

The ferries you mention are vital infrastructure projects, they connect a lot of people and are essential.

I do agree that government needs to invest, but a football stadium that is used ten-fifteen times /year or so isn't high on my list of priorities. The SFA should look at modern ways of raising funds for stadium development before the begging bowl comes out (sponsorship and commercial development).

Exactly. Comparing ferries to spending £500 million on a new stadium is a straw man if I ever heard one

[JimBHibees]

Can remember Thatcher promising to invest in Hampden prior to an election. As a nation we do seem to have more than our fair share of believers :greengrin

[Iain G]

If Belfast can build a stadium for £100mil from scratch with gyms, hospitality and changing rooms, pitch ect I'm sure we could do 2 stands. Maxwell and the architect both said around 100. There would have to be political will and there isn't. They gave £25 of our money to a classical venue not needed and £60 mil to the cycling event this year so not unprecedented, but football has never been I priority

Much easier to build from scratch than to demo part of an existing stadium, retain the rest of it, keep the office up and running and all the uncertainty that goes with that. Logistical nightmare.

The two budgets are not comparable as for very different projects.

And architects and budgets are well known to not be good bedfellows!

[Stairway 2 7]

Much easier to build from scratch than to demo part of an existing stadium, retain the rest of it, keep the office up and running and all the uncertainty that goes with that. Logistical nightmare.

The two budgets are not comparable as for very different projects.

And architects and budgets are well known to not be good bedfellows!

Yes Stuttgart is a better example. Adjusted for inflation that is £75 mil although £25 mil of that was internals like gym and conference centre.

The architect of Stuttgart and maxwell both saying €100, seems like a good stab.

Class how they done it, can see from these pics. Really similar. But as said not happening so I'd prefer we flattened it and used existing stadiums

27308
27309
27310

[1875Sean]

Yes Stuttgart is a better example. Adjusted for inflation that is £75 mil although £25 mil of that was internals like gym and conference centre.

The architect of Stuttgart and maxwell both saying €100, seems like a good stab.

Class how they done it, can see from these pics. Really similar. But as said not happening so I'd prefer we flattened it and used existing stadiums

27308
27309
27310

Looks great, I remember reading Maxwell saying it would cost upwards of £100 million and it would be a non starter

[JimBHibees]

The renovations that have taken place at Hampden when it hosts major football events such as the recent and future Euro games, the Champions League Final and Europa League Final are largely on things not seen or often even considered by the rank and file fan.

As an example the ability for team and match official's transport to go straight into a private, protected area to disembark. Some of the old perimeter fencing and walls were also removed at Hampden and replaced by 'moat' areas to meet the 5 star criteria. There also has to be a minimum capacity of 1000 in both lounges and seating for VIPS, team delegates and other hospitality. Things like doping control rooms with restricted and secure access and adeqaute space for TV studios for multiple national and commercial broadcasters and so on also have to be considered. There is also a requirement for a minimum number of 5 star hotel beds within a very small radius of the ground (1000 beds for the Champions League Final!). That's probably why dumping a national stadium in a field somewhere a few miles north of Stirling as is often suggested is a non starter.

There are some things that fans may well notice (minimum capacity of 50K, minimum pitch size, internationally understood signage, minimum floodlight lux etc) but a lot of it simply isn't geared towards us. However much is spent on Hampden will largely go unseen by us regular punters as, on the spectating side, it's all geared towards keeping the blazers and their guests happy and much of the rest will be spent on keeping the facilities for players, officials and so on up to scratch.

No doubt the stadium needs work for the fans done on it, very few would surely argue otherwise but UEFA see is as a suitable venue because, by their criteria, it is.

Agree with every word

[hibstag]

Does anybody know how much public money was spent on rebuilding Wembley, plus the public infrastructure projects in the vicinity connected to the rebuild?

The original estimate was £160M... for the stadium rebuild alone... but. I think that was vastly underestimated and additional funding was required.

Im sure I read somewhere that the feasibility study and planning process for the rebuild and a subsequent report into whether to Keep the twin towers at Wembley or not received more money than Hampden/sports Scotland.
This costing issue was highlighted when the stadium was sold back to private ownership. A private company FA/ Wembley had done up their aging asset with public money and sold it on to anew company - called something like Wembley the national stadium allowing it to be run it commercially.