http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/fleetst1802/detail?.dir=a2e1re2&.dnm=7aadre2.jpg&.src=ph
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/4620re2.jpg?ph4y9yEBPiCYWrbG
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/444are2.jpg?ph4y9yEBU1z87t.e
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/f048re2.jpg?ph4y9yEB.bISMfPj
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/9372re2.jpg?ph4y9yEBYMwnpSrm

old Hampden PK

great pictures, a throwback to the days when scots were actually capable of playing football

European Championship Under 19's Final - Scotland 1 - 2 Spain

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/Under19/FixturesResults/Round=2229/match=84496/Report=PR.html


Scotlands last 2 international results -

Bulgaria 1 - Scotland 5
Japan 0 - Scotland 0


Ranked 41 in the world by FIFA (just jumped 20 places), 11 places above Norway, 16 places above Belgium, 19 places above Austria, 43 places above Hungary -

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,27275-Jul-2006,00.html

League is ranked 11th best in Europe, will jump to 9th if Hearts beat AEK Athens -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2007.html


The future is bright, the future is Scottish!


Celtic in pot 2 of the Champions League group stages.
Hearts favourites to make it into the group stages as well.
2 UEFA 5 star stadiums in the one city, 3 stadiums over 50000 in Glasgow alone.
5 highest average league attendances in Europe. Highest league attendances in the world per head of population.
Scotland international team had the 5th highest attendances for the 2006 qualifiers in Europe despite finishing 3rd (same position as Denmark finished).


Attendance trivia - Queens Park record attendance for a home league game is 95722!! Hibs record home attendance is 65860 against Hearts! Rangers is 118567!!!

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?curpageid=551

19 April 1952
Motherwell 4, Dundee 0
Goals: Watson, Redpath, Humphries, Kelly
Attendance: 136,304

17 April 1920
Kilmarnock 3, Albion Rovers 2.
Goals: Culley, Shortt, J Smith; Watson, Hillhouse
Attendance: 95,000

23 April 1938
East Fife 1, Kilmarnock 1.
Goals: McLeod; McAvoy
Attendance: 80,091

Replay
27 April 1938
East Fife 4, Kilmarnock 2.
Goals: McKerrell 2, McLeod, Miller; Thomson pen, McGrogan
Attendance: 92,716

17 April 1948
Rangers 1, Morton 1.
Goals: Gillick; Whyte
Attendance: 129,176

Replay
21 April 1948
Rangers 1, Morton 0.
Goal: Williamson
Attendance: 131,975

26 April 1958
Clyde 1, Hibernian 0.
Goal: Coyle
Attendance: 95,123

24 April 1937
Celtic 2, Aberdeen 0.
Goals: Crum, Buchan
Attendance: 147,365

Genuine photo of Bubomb, location - Grand Place, Brussels

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4733/1z55abblh6.jpg

one quick question Sheriff's Badge,

How do you know about Bubomb?

it would be very interesting to know how much Hampden pk has reduced in size, because the new stands look miles smaller than that terracing, i wonder if i can superimpose one photo onto another!

ok, it actually doesn't look much smaller now, certainly not down from 160 000 to 52 000; i guess they used to jam-pack the spectators in, without any regard to safety issues, thus the terracing looks so vast; it's a kind of optical illusion!

it's true capacity was probably only about 65 000 by modern standards, but it looks so vast in those black and white photos....most odd!

it would be very interesting to know how much Hampden pk has reduced in size, because the new stands look miles smaller than that terracing, i wonder if i can superimpose one photo onto another!

ok, it actually doesn't look much smaller now, certainly not down from 160 000 to 52 000; i guess they used to jam-pack the spectators in, without any regard to safety issues, thus the terracing looks so vast; it's a kind of optical illusion!

it's true capacity was probably only about 65 000 by modern standards, but it looks so vast in those black and white photos....most odd!


The old Wembley was similar in that respect. When it was built it held 127,000 but nearly 200,000 got in to see the F.A cup final between Bolton and West Ham. By the late ninties Wembley's capacity was down to about 74,000.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/fleetst1802/detail?.dir=a2e1re2&.dnm=7aadre2.jpg&.src=ph
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/4620re2.jpg?ph4y9yEBPiCYWrbG
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/444are2.jpg?ph4y9yEBU1z87t.e
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/f048re2.jpg?ph4y9yEB.bISMfPj
http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/9372re2.jpg?ph4y9yEBYMwnpSrm

old Hampden PK

[IMG] brackets are your friend.

[IMG]http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/44cbd3dbze83cc40f/a2e1re2/__sr_/444are2.jpg?pho7MzEBJEGX7t.e[IMG]

yes but this terracing still looks miles bigger than today's

Ur images dont work, heres a thought use these: [IMG]

on other forums i upload strait from MY DOCUMENTS, but here i dont know what the fuck's going on. what does [IMG] mean and dont tell me i have to host images online, because this is a real pain.

Yes, you have to host them online. At imageshack.us and www.tinypic.com you don't need to register

ok thanks! :)

Good links !

Are there any plans to increase capacity for the Commonwealth games?

I should think so.

Hampden Park will sacrifice around 5000 seats in order to accomodate the running track for the 2014 games. With the National team performing well all games have been sell outs and UEFA are looking to increase the minumum capacity for Champions League finals from 50,000 to 70,000. Three great reasons to expand!

On the West side of the stadium (Rangers end) there is a large area known as Lesser Hampden which could allow for expansion. On the East side (Celtic end) there is also room for expansion. I'd imagine carrying on the second tier from the South stand would be the best option.

NB. this map is upside down


http://www.upyarkilt.com/Hampden_Satellite_Zoom_X2.jpg

Any idea what the capacity is of the two tier stand?

The bid, certainly, does not involve an expansion of Hampden - I believe that the plan is to have a capacity of around 46,000 for the stadium. Personally, I feel that a lack of stadium expansion at this time (i.e. when investment and time is available) would be a very big missed opportunity for Hampden and the SFA. That said, I think the capacity of the City of Manchester Stadium was under 40,000 so I'm not sure there these games could necessary be a suitable or realistic catalyst for such expansion.

Renders of Hampden from Glasgow's bid:

http://www.glasgow2014.com/NR/rdonlyres/27507127-4862-436E-B911-39302F6B67B1/0/athletics.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42902000/jpg/_42902507_hampden-park203.jpg

A larger version of the second image can be found here:

http://www.glasgow2014.com/Glasgow2014/Images/newsimages/hampden-park.jpg

The SFA have already talked of expanding it (about 2 weeks ago) to atleast a 70,000 seater. It really needs to become larger with the fans closer to the pitch. Hopefully we will get some government funding this time!!

Cinosnap, about a quarter of the Hampden redevelopment was funded by various Exchequer bodies. I think the £30 odd million that the SFA were granted by the lottery and this £18 million from the Exchequer when redeveloping Hampden Park was more than enough when compared with Murrayfield which was developed, fully, from private finance. More than half of the redevelopment costs of Hampden were provide by these two agencies - £48 million of some £70 million. In terms of it, I don't think any footballing body actually paid anything towards Hampden park as the other £22 million was raised by private donors and the sale of debentures. Unless it would be used at the games (and given the 38,000 capacity of the City of Manchester stadium, I really doubt it would be) I really don't feel it should be the domain of the government to get involved financially. If it does, the much more financially strapped SRU, whose problems, mostly, stem from the post-Taylor Murrayfield redevelopment, would have serious grounds for complaint.

Where will Queen's Park and Scotland play while this is being developed? Ibrox or Celtic Park? I assume Scotland could also use Murrayfield.

Any chance of adding a second tier on the opposite wing to the current one?

Queens Park will probably just play at Lesser Hampden or Partick/Scotstoun etc

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/1936194444_91baeeecae_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/1907595039_eb63e9bf66_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/1937538246_42a6db852f_o.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8864/wecanstilldoitac0.gif

The SFA have already talked of expanding it (about 2 weeks ago) to atleast a 70,000 seater. It really needs to become larger with the fans closer to the pitch. Hopefully we will get some government funding this time!!

I think Hampden should be expanded. I always felt it was a monumental mistake (and a testimony to a lack of ambition) that the great Hampden, scene of 130,000 attendances was reduced to a figure significantly less than half that number.

Should it go to 70,000? Looking at the present structure, such a change may now be beyond simply generating the will to reach such a figure. The stand that would house a second tier is located quite close to the roadside, leaving little room to extend back.

The other alternative is to excavate down after the games, 'tightening' the ground and increasing capacity, just as the CoMS did in post-Commonwealth Games mode. The problem with this is that Hampden is already a partially sunken amphitheatre, so all the access comes from around two-thirds of the way up the stand. Digging down would only exacerbate this.

As ever, it's all down to money and I'm not sure that the SFA are either awash with it or particularly competent at spending it. Also, it's all very well to say the Scottish football is entering some 'golden age' due to two very good wins against France (and believe me, I'd like to see a stronger Scotland side after so many years of mediocrity), but don't forget that Hampden attracted a crowd of, what, 15,000 for the SFA Cup semi-final last season. I know it was Gretna, but it hardly speaks well of the unbridled passion of Scottish fans.

It seems strange that Murrayfield holds 15,000 more than Hampden.

Does Murrayfield always sell out for Scotland rugby games?

Only 6Nations, I think.

Hampden Attendences



LEAGUE CUP FINALS
2002 Rangers v Ayr: 50,076 sell-out
2003 Rangers v Celtic: 52,000 sell-out
2004 Hibs v Livingston 45,500
2005 Rangers v Motherwell 50,182 sell-out
2006 Dunfermline v Celtic 50,090 sell-out
2007 Kilmarnock v Hibernian 52,000 sell-out


SCOTTISH CUP FINALS
2002 Celtic v Rangers 51,138 sell-out
2003 Dundee v Rangers 47,136
2004 Dunfermline v Celtic 50,846 sell-out
2005 Celtic v Dundee Utd 50,635 sell-out
2006 Hearts v Gretna 51,232 sell-out
2007 Celtic v Dunfermline 49,600 sell-out

SCOTLAND INTERNATIONALS

Euro 2004 qualifiers
Scotland v Iceland 37,938
Scotland v Germany 48,047 sell-out
Scotland v Faroe Islands 40,091
Scotland v Lithuania 50,343 sell-out

World Cup 2006 qualifiers
Scotland v Slovenia 38,278 (Wed night)
Scotland v Norway 48,882 sell-out
Scotland v Moldova 45,317
Scotland v Italy 50,185 sell-out
Scotland v Belarus 51,105 sell-out
Euro 2008 qualifiers
Scotland v Faroe Islands 50,059 (at Celtic Park, at Hampden would have been sell-out)
Scotland v France 50,456 sell-out
Scotland v Georgia 50,850 sell-out
Scotland v Lithuania 51,349 sell-out
Scotland v Ukraine sell-out
Scotland v Italy sell-out

Murrayfield tends to sell out for the 'big' 6 Nations games; basically, for the games against the home nations and France. It generally won't for games against Italy but will get a crowd of around 50,000 or so. It also tends to sell out for 'big' friendly games against the main Southern Hemisphere sides. Usually, Murrayfield would sell out, on average, four in six games per year.

Hearts sold Murrayfield out once too. v Barca.

If memory serves me correctly, there were 57,000 at the Hearts vs. Barca match, so it certainly wasn't a capacity sell out. I'm not sure if all the tickets made available sold out, however?

Looking at the top picture posted by Mo Rush, the row of terraced buildings between Somerville and Cumming Drive to the bottom left of the stadium may prohibit expansion on this side if they cannot be knocked down.

If this is the case it is uncanny how remarkably similar they look from a distance to the listed buildings that prevent St James Park being expanded on its small side.

I remember Simon Inglis being particualry critical of Hampdens 1990's refit as a lot of money for what is for the most part, still an old fashoined stadium with an expensive refit. Something should have been done to improve the sightlines behind the goals and bring the supporters closer to the pitch.

Having said that though, if they had done this they wouldnt be able to fit an athletics track in it thus making it fit to host the Commonwealth Games.

Looks like Bubomb has been at the Scotch as it appears he is talking to himself again (Archibald Leitch/NeilF/Possible others)?:cheers:

I'm Archibald. I'm not Bubomb or whatever his name is.

Surely the quickest solution to the capacity issue at Hampden Park is to lower the pitch. Just 2-3 metres would probably enable another 8-10 rows (10,000 seats) in one easy step, and at the same time bring people closer to the pitch. I think Porto may have done similar at their former stadium, increasing the capacity substantially. Future major Athletics events (If you can envisage any in the next 50 yrs in Glasgow) could probably still take place by reinstating the track and field on a temporary raised platform at the current pitch height. Personally, I think the end stands need to be much bigger, at least another 20 rows, but the eliptical layout may send them rows way beyond maximum viewing distances, so perhaps a complete remodelling of the ends after the games could be called for. Whatever happens, a much greater capacity/density is necessary to really recreate the famous Hampden roar. I know they have been getting noisy up there recently, but doubt it is anything to compare to the 150,000 crowds.

Tom, there has been a quick discussion on this in another thread, but I'll summarise the problems with digging down at Hampden:

- Three sides of the stadium are already dug down, which is why the vomatories in the stadium are about two thirds of the way back in the lower tiers. Digging down further and causing the vomatories to be (relatively) even further towards the back of the tier would be fairly undesirable in terms of egress and even health and safety.

- The North Stand has a steeper rake than the other three sides of the stadium for some reason, which could cause practicality problems when digging down - excessively shallow rakes on the new dug down portions in order to maintain the full bowl, for example.

- There has also been questions asked about the sightlines from the backrows of the some of the stands. Apparently, digging down the pitch would restrict views at the back of the stands, which isn't going to be desirable.

I don't see digging down being anything close to a solution to increasing capacity at Hampden.

Money spent on this venue to to upgrade it would be better spent on an entirely new venue.

-
- There has also been questions asked about the sightlines from the backrows of the some of the stands. Apparently, digging down the pitch would restrict views at the back of the stands, which isn't going to be desirable.

I don't see digging down being anything close to a solution to increasing capacity at Hampden.

The vomitory situation could be problematic if they cannot themselves be lowered also, but I wouldn't have thought that just 2-3 metres would have added to this so much. If the rear rows of the side stand would then suffer in sightline terms, perhaps a second steeper tier could be added in their place (mirroring the other side). The end stands will certainly not suffer in this respect since they are so far from the pitch to start with. Even just 1 metre would probably yield an extra 4 rows at the shallow rake of the front sections, there must be over 1,000 seats in a row at Hampden. I can't remember the details about the portugese stadium, but I'm sure it added something like 20,000 seats for a 6m excavation. Not saying it's in anyway an ideal solution..... but every little helps :)

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I don't see how the vomatories could be lowered as they are on ground level on the East and West stands of the stadium. Any attempt to lower them would require a lot of internal restructuring of the stadium which may well not be worth it for a few thousand more seats.

I also fail to see how it would be possible to add a second tier to the North Stand - it is constricted by a road and flats to the north east, so there is considerable doubt as to whether or not there is available space to build there. Given this picture:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/getaways/shortbreaks/glasgow/images/hampden_park.jpg

I'd tend to side with those that suggest that the North Stand is at its maximum size already.

I basically agree with Mo Rush here - if there is to be worthwhile expansion of Hampden then a brand new stadium should be considered as the only rational approach. I find it remarkable that such things are being discussed less than a decade after the new Hampden Park opened but really, the SFA only have themselves to blame - it is an atrocious design for a modern stadium built without consideration of expansion of modernisation, which is totally absurd. The space on the site is there for a much larger stadium; excluding Lesser Hampden, the site is about 350 by 275 metres and the stadium itself only occupies about 290 by 210 metres. This, to be honest, is an absurdly large footprint for such a small stadium: Twickenham occupies about 260 by 210 metres, for example. A new stadium on the site with a ready build larger capacity, and with better sightlines really seems the only viable way forward for meaninful expansion. When compared to other stadia that opened around the same time; Millennium Stadium and Stade de France come to mind, one realises how poor the planning and rebuild of Hampden Park really was.

I am not a fan of eliptical stadia however Hampden might be a slight exception as an historic icon, and the last of the Glasgow ovals. I see what you are saying about the streets beyond the North stand. From the pic the roof looks like a propped cantilever, but I can't remember seeing any supporting columns actually inside the seated tier. This would suggest that there is a good few metres depth of circulation area around the perimeter, don't know if that is so. If it is, there is some room for expansion into this space, and almost unlimited space at the ends, although viewing distances will be excessive. I'm sure 5,000 extra seats could easily be achieved by lowering the pitch just a metre or so which would hardly impact on vomitories surely, expansion into the peripheral voids (if they exist) could make 15-20,000 more new seats. Which altogether would make the capacity more respectable. Would require a new roof, but that's normally cheaper than a whole stadium. Perhaps these curves could be replaced altogether with two large double deckers in a slightly curved profile (but would probably defeat the object of preserving anything there).

In a way, I see the point you make but I'm not sure tradition is necessarily a good thing to build into modern stadia: having taken the decision to modernise at Hampden, some of the decisions made become absurd and rather myopic: the fact that Hampden was smaller than one of the club stadia in Glasgow and a similiar size to another is disturbing, given that it is a national stadium. At the time, I assume it was deemed that the capacity of Hampden was suitable for the requirements of the stadium but the tradition of support in Scottish football would, potentially, have required something much larger in the future.

A few stadia, such as KC Stadium in Hull that have a similiar design to Hampden Park have been designed with the means to expand, should it be required, already in place and it little extra cost. Given the tradition of support of football in Scotland, I cannot fathom how those redeveloping Hampden thought that 50,000 or so would be the absolute requirement of the stadium, yet it seems that the stadium has been developed with such a thought in mind. I have no doubt that the 50,000 odd capacity was right for the stadium at the time but to be built without a mind for expansion seems crazy to me.

In short: if those redeveloping Hampden Park sought to maintain tradition, I feel that they could have done it in a much better way than they have - my views on the internal bowl is a point that reflects my own experiences, as a non-Scot with no need / desire to go to Hampden under normal circumstances, of talking to fans that regularly attened events in the stadium. My overwhelming view is that average fans dislike the stadium because of poor sightlines and what they consider as a poor atmosphere. Given that nothing of the original stadium remains, this does not seem to me to be a good maintenance of tradition.

The point of the cantilevers could be valid but there are two things to note - firstly, that we could be dealing with restricted sightlines of those in the backrow again, which is hardly desirable - adding a few thousand seats at a given degree of expense becomes less desirable if we're dealing with restricted views and, potentially, lower ticket prices. The other point relates to the executive boxes - a single deck of which go around three sides of the stadium and a double layer on the single-tier North Side. It probably wouldn't make much financial sense to get rid of these boxes in order to accomodate the poor seats.

As it is, given what I could see as the relative expense / difficulty of adding 5,000 - 20,000 seats at Hampden, added to what I've come to understand as problems that those whom attend the stadium have, any expansion should come in the form of a new stadium on the site.

As a correction to an earlier point I've made: the North Stand has a more shallow rake than the other three sides, not a less shallow rake as I had suggested.

Sounds a bit peculiar that they have exec boxes at the back of a stand if the view is so poor. To stop any new seats being poor couldn't they just have a steeper rake for the 10+ new rows at the back or indeed be on a raised shelf. There used to be a stand above this side in anycase, meaning that planning for an actual new upper tier should be viable too. I haven't been to hampden since it was seated. Can't remember any variation in rake of the vast terraces, but it's a bit dim and distant now. Was a noisy place without a roof, so I can't imagine it being a poor atmosphere now it has one. Agreed the planning for existing capacity is bewildering, perhaps they could claim the same lack of foresight that led to so many clubs settling for such small capacities post Taylor report, only to have to have big rethinks soon after.

Looks like Bubomb has been at the Scotch as it appears he is talking to himself again (Archibald Leitch/NeilF/Possible others)?:cheers:

NeilF is definitely not Bubomb - he's far too rational and knowledgeable.

Bubomb was hilarious, I wish they'd bring him back, a welcome breath of fresh air I say.

Thanks, Charlie.

Sounds a bit peculiar that they have exec boxes at the back of a stand if the view is so poor. To stop any new seats being poor couldn't they just have a steeper rake for the 10+ new rows at the back or indeed be on a raised shelf. There used to be a stand above this side in anycase, meaning that planning for an actual new upper tier should be viable too. I haven't been to hampden since it was seated. Can't remember any variation in rake of the vast terraces, but it's a bit dim and distant now. Was a noisy place without a roof, so I can't imagine it being a poor atmosphere now it has one. Agreed the planning for existing capacity is bewildering, perhaps they could claim the same lack of foresight that led to so many clubs settling for such small capacities post Taylor report, only to have to have big rethinks soon after.

I do apologise - I don't think I was clear when talking about the potential for restricted views at the back of the stand. I meant it in reference to your own suggestion with regards to propped cantilevers. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that there are two sets of stantions for the propped cantilevers all around Hampden - one at the very outside wall of the stadium and the other at the very back of the seated area. I can't find a picture showing the construction of the North Stand, but this one from the construction of the South Stand should show the double stantioned cantilevers (linked because of excessive size):

http://www.qpfc.com/hampden/hampden4.JPG

So, the trouble with building back into this area is that the front set of these stantions are going to be in the way of the new seats, especially in the North Stand. You should be able to see what I mean by looking at where the internal set of stantions are in this picture (linked because of excessive size):

http://www.qpfc.com/hampden/hampden1.jpg

If you look to the two sides of this picture, where there are no boxes, you can see where the inner set of stantions are in relation to the seats in the stadium - the back row of seats of the North Stand are set either level, or just in front of these stantions. Putting new seats behind there stantions leads to the restricted views I was talking about. This isn't really a problem with executive boxes, because the stantions are merely used as a dividing means for the boxes and are unlikely to restrict views - the seats of these boxes appear to be on an open 'balcony' in front of the boxes, but anyone that chooses to remain in the box will also have a perfect view because they would, at worst, be standing level with the stantions.

There is definately space there but to build into it would require the sacrifice of corporate seats and boxes and only offer new seats with restricted views because of the location of the support stantions for the cantilevers.

I didn't realise there was an upper tier at the back of this stand. A new fully cantilevered roof on this side would enable this tier to be extended back to the perimeter wall. The previous aerial view indicates a decent depth from back wall to support prop. I would estimate that this would be at least enough room for an extra 10 rows. This cheap roofing method has robbed the stadium of substantial capacity. The eliptical plan layout could've utilised a compression/tension ring arrangement as seen at the Olympic stadium Rome and elsewhere. With at least 10,000 new seats at the rear (if carried around all sides, and more at the front due to a small lowering of pitch), it does begin to look half decent capacity wise, and the character of Hampden is preserved, but with the bonus of having some people closer to the pitch.
I haven't got a sightline modeller with me at the mo, or the required plans, but I feel sure that a bit of manipulation could push the capacity upto 70k+. Given that the stadium is already predominantly below ground level the cost of extra structure to expand tiers upwards will not be too great.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/getaways/shortbreaks/glasgow/images/hampden_park.jpg


Beautifull shape, what ever they do, don´t f... that up!!!

I still think its time for a new stadium. I've done a little conceptual design for that site and it would look great.

I still think its time for a new stadium. I've done a little conceptual design for that site and it would look great.

Go on Mo......... spill the beans. Let's have a look at what you've done!!

Beautifull shape, what ever they do, don´t f... that up!!!

That's the main thing they need to change. Yes, the shape is nice but it is not suited to football. The sightlines suck!

That's the main thing they need to change. Yes, the shape is nice but it is not suited to football. The sightlines suck!

The sightlines should be reasonable, everyone should be able to see all parts of the pitch given the track around the pitch and the curves etc, it's the viewing distances that are crap, and the limited number of elevated views (or is that the sightline issue you're talking about).

The track and the small gradient are what makes the view bad. It can be quite hard to see the other end of the pitch if you are in one of the rounded stands.

That's the main thing they need to change. Yes, the shape is nice but it is not suited to football. The sightlines suck!

Might be, but don´t f... it up! or bomb the whole place down and build something new, or go on without touching these beautifull, outside, lines.

Conceptual design

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Hampden1.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Hampden2.jpg

:nuts: I don´t see no snake in there Mo!!! :lol:

Nice design, first and third rings big, with a small one in the middle. I like it.
Specialy as the third ring is a real ring and not something in between.
I think this is a little bit how the new WHL stadium would look like.

Why did you design it for Scotland the way you did, I mean your thoughts behind it?

Or are the second and the third equal?

Conceptual design

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Hampden1.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Hampden2.jpg

Great work Mo Rush. That would certainly be a great improvement on what is there at the moment. If something groovy was done with the exterior cladding, perhaps Saltires or images from Hampden's past etched into the glass then the stadium could reasonably claim to be one of the world's great venues once more. O

If Scotland were to win a bid for a Euro Champs then I can see Hampden being rebuilt. 2016 is probably too soon given the Commonwealth games being held there but maybe 2020. However, the current South Stand was only completed in the last 6 years or so and I can't see the SFA or anyone else with a stake in the stadium wanting that investment written off so soon.

To be fair, I don't think the SFA actually paid very much towards the redevelopment of Hampden Park.... The development cost £70million, £30 million of which came from Lottery Funding and another £18m of which came from the Exchequer, while the remaining £22m came from the sale of debentures and private donations...

After the Commonwealth Games, should Hampden Park remain at its 46,000 capacity or try to be expanded to 70,000? If so, how?

Didn't know Hampden Park can host atheltics, always thought there is not enough space at the sides. Will they remove some of the seats there?

Didn't know Hampden Park can host atheltics, always thought there is not enough space at the sides. Will they remove some of the seats there?

there is presently a running track around the pitch but its only 320m long and no space for stuff like a javelin runup. so we have a stadium with a running track and the consequent duff views for football and a track that's no use to anybody. for the CG's they are going to build a raised platform for the athletics (presumably this will include the infield area) which will have 8 x 400m lanes. this will cover the first four or five rows of seating and reduce the capacity temporarily to about 46,000.

If its a success (and I expect it will be, otherwise the games wouldn't have been awarded to Glasgow), I can forsee Glasgow bidding for events such as European and World Athletics champs. I think that's a better idea than Scotland going for UEFA tournaments.

If Hampden Park were to expand to 70,000, it would have two tiers and it would remain an oval.

Jim, the trouble is that there is only room for a second tier on three sides of the stadium - the South, East and West. There would also be questions about egress on the East side of the stadium - there's about 25 metres between the stadium and the boundary on the east side of the site; indeed, the space is even smaller at the western edge of the boundary, but that leads onto Lesser Hampden and is less problematic - but this isn't taking account of the strength of the foundations; given the cost of the whole project and the relatively poor approach to redevelopment that was taken, I doubt that the foundations have been reinforced enough to hold a second tier.

On a straight line from West to East, Hampden is about 295 metres long, and the site itself aboute 280 by 350 metres, excluding Lesser Hampden and about 280 by 430 including Lesser Hampden, so there is plenty of room on the site for a much larger stadum - Twickenham would fit comfortably onto the site and still room to the south for car parking, assuming the current alignment is maintained - even more room for parking could be created if the stadium was switched to a North-South alignment. There is plenty of room on the site to maintain all the necessary car parking and to build a stadium with a capacity of about 80,000 but, to my mind at least, if Hampden is expanded, it would require a total rebuild of the stadium - I can't see any significant expansion of the current stadium being plausible, especially if the oval shape is maintained, despite the size of the site.

All that info means I don't want Hampden Park expanded.

Hampden is a shocking stadium to be a fan at they really should bull doze it and start again. I am a Rangers fan and the prospect of 2 season at hampden is frankly filling me with dread. Its ok for a couple of games but not week in week out. They should rebuild it as football stadium and not an oval.

But I don't want it bulldozed and rebuilt as a football stadium. It looks too clean and too new for demolition. I like it the way it is, and it's fine the way it is. If Hampden Park were a rectangular stadium, I would hate it. I am strongly opposed to the 70,000 seat Hampden Park. If glasgow wants a stadium of that capacity, it should be Ibrox Stadium.

But I don't want it bulldozed and rebuilt as a football stadium. It looks too clean and too new for demolition. I like it the way it is, and it's fine the way it is. If Hampden Park were a rectangular stadium, I would hate it. I am strongly opposed to the 70,000 seat Hampden Park. If glasgow wants a stadium of that capacity, it should be Ibrox Stadium.

and Celtic Park :)

and Celtic Park :)

Bulldoze Murrayfield and Hampden, and the relocate a new stadium either half way along the M8 or at Stirling.

Make it a seventy thousand all seater with retractable roof and retractable seating a la Stade de France. It could be used for:

Six Nations (2 / 3)
Scottish Cup semis and finals (3)
CIS cup semi and finals (3)
Scotland Internationals (5 / 6)
Uefa cup final
Champions league final
Euro championship final
Heineken CUp final
Athletics world championship
Olympic bid

The SFA? SRU can be lead tennants, then Scotland can bid for a Euro championship, given that Glasgow can be used as the city with two stadia.

Stadiums in

Glasgow (2) (2 X sixty thousand plus)
Edinburgh (1) (1 X thirty / forty thousand) (reduced to thirty afterwards for Hearts)
Stirling (1) (New National Stadium, 70000)
Dundee (1) 30000 temporary reduced to 20000 afterwards and used by both Dundee clubs
Aberdeen (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 25000 afterwards)
Inverness (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 15000 afterwards)
Kilmarnock (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 15000 afterwards)

Seems pretty simple to me!


Seems pretty simple to me

Technically Hampden belongs to Queens Park doesn't it?

Technically Hampden belongs to Queens Park doesn't it?

I am sure if the SFA said they were withdrawing their funding and matches from Hampden and Queens Park had to maintain the ground themselves I am pretty sure there would be little fight put up from the amateurs.

Also by getting rid of the stadium QP could sell 75 % of their land to developers (remember this is a very ni9ce area of Glasgow (Queens Park, so that land would be worth quite a bit).

Build a perfectly suitable ground for the club and be financially secure for ever more.

Also didn't the SFA buy Hampden of QP when the stadiu was redeveloped, I think I remember something about that!

I am sure if the SFA said they were withdrawing their funding and matches from Hampden and Queens Park had to maintain the ground themselves I am pretty sure there would be little fight put up from the amateurs.

Also by getting rid of the stadium QP could sell 75 % of their land to developers (remember this is a very ni9ce area of Glasgow (Queens Park, so that land would be worth quite a bit).

Build a perfectly suitable ground for the club and be financially secure for ever more.

Also didn't the SFA buy Hampden of QP when the stadiu was redeveloped, I think I remember something about that!

Queen's Park still hold the deed, they're the one's who applied for the government funding to redevelop Hampden. The SFA are QPFC's tenants.

Edit:

Hampden Park is owned by Queens Park Football Club but it's operations are contracted out to Hampden Park Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Scottish Football Association. QPFC owns the land that the stadium, and Lesser Hampden, sit on. Lesser Hampden is operated by QPFC as a training ground and occasional match venue when a higher grossing event is taking place at Hampden Park.

Another conceptual upgrade.

-New modern cost effective roof, wit height comparable to previous roof. Roof material probably a very light fabric that still allows light to penetrate, lowering the impact on the existing site and structures.
-Entirely new upper tier that wraps right around the stadium with improved sightlines.
- Few top rows of the first tier removed to accommodate upper tier
- Improved suite and VIP facilities
- Podium wrapped around venue to double parking capacity and include transport interchange(not shown in images)

Issues:
- Spectators behind goals remain far away.

Cost:
- Roof: $35 million

http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/05/28/05/39/3794104_500x500.jpg
http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/05/28/05/39/3794129_500x500.jpg
http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/05/28/05/40/3794149_500x500.jpg
http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/05/28/06/01/3794340_500x500.jpg

It looks like Mo Rush had to save the day again with that proposal he presented for Hampden Park.

New pics

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/19/95432965_de2130aa76_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13025313@N00/95432965/in/set-1551971/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/95432966_9ab91ab65d_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13025313@N00/95432966/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/2784410707_fdf36dc668_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theandrewstewartshow/2784410707/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1225/558169287_ef31403df9_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13025313@N00/558169287/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/122597260_69af914256_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30786249@N00/122597260/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/122597261_573b9261df_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30786249@N00/122597261/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/122597262_7d8ad32ea5_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30786249@N00/122597262/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3404900899_d169d7a5ee_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/killie65/3404900899/

When is the track going in?

Bulldoze Murrayfield and Hampden, and the relocate a new stadium either half way along the M8 or at Stirling.

Make it a seventy thousand all seater with retractable roof and retractable seating a la Stade de France. It could be used for:

Six Nations (2 / 3)
Scottish Cup semis and finals (3)
CIS cup semi and finals (3)
Scotland Internationals (5 / 6)
Uefa cup final
Champions league final
Euro championship final
Heineken CUp final
Athletics world championship
Olympic bid

The SFA? SRU can be lead tennants, then Scotland can bid for a Euro championship, given that Glasgow can be used as the city with two stadia.

Stadiums in

Glasgow (2) (2 X sixty thousand plus)
Edinburgh (1) (1 X thirty / forty thousand) (reduced to thirty afterwards for Hearts)
Stirling (1) (New National Stadium, 70000)
Dundee (1) 30000 temporary reduced to 20000 afterwards and used by both Dundee clubs
Aberdeen (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 25000 afterwards)
Inverness (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 15000 afterwards)
Kilmarnock (1) (30000 temporary reduced to 15000 afterwards)

Seems pretty simple to me!


Seems pretty simple to me

I like the idea of a new 'super' stadium in Scotland, but I would bet all the money I have that it would never be built in the location you are suggesting!

I love this stadium :cheers:

http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/504878-bigthumbnail.jpg

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/35/44/2354470_56f38b8d.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07_05/VenueHampdenPark_650x364.jpg

http://london2012.olympics.com.au/images/dmImage/StandardImage/hampden.jpg

http://www.johncarroll.co.uk/imgs/gallerylarge/f88_10659_4256018.jpeg

Can some smart arse ,employed by the SFA,explain why we have DARK BLUE seats in the main stand(the traditional scottish colour)and "Rangers"coloured,red,white and blue seats around the rest of the arena.Apart from the fact,it looks pathetic,was it perhaps decided by a Rangers fan at the SFA,that Scotlands home stadium should look like a Union Jack.

p.s.No,i dont support Celtic.

Blue, white and red are the colours of Scottish football. The national team wears them all too often:

http://world-cup-wallpaper.com/wp-content/themes/snapshot/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Scotland-National-Football-Team.jpg&w=690&h=396&zc=1&q=90

Exactly,why do we have RED socks also.Whose the guy that decides things like this.?

Always wondered why it has red seats, spoils what would be a tidy ground if it was all blue with saltires at either goal end.

Expansion will be talked about if we qualify for the WC - 2014. It's doable, the group is winnable and we have a good squad of young players who will hopefully be able to do the job. And by then hopefully the three Scottish Football organizations will have merged and the future will be brigt with a 16 team Spl...

The SFA have already talked of expanding it (about 2 weeks ago) to atleast a 70,000 seater. It really needs to become larger with the fans closer to the pitch. Hopefully we will get some government funding this time!!
Why should the SFA be trusted with a single penny given the mess they made of "redeveloping" Hampden?



It seems strange that Murrayfield holds 15,000 more than Hampden.
The SRU (a then amateur organisation) took their ground Murrayfield from a one-stand three sided terracing
stadium into a stadium that shames Hampden Park. And bare in mind, the East stand at Murrayfield was
build in 1982-83, the same time the old North Stand at Hampden was being demolished and the terracing
concreted over. The SFA are *the major reason* the Scottish football is in the state it is. Too many
blazered back-hand-friendly spineless cowards permeating crucial positions in the upper echelons of
the games governing body.



Surely the quickest solution to the capacity issue at Hampden Park is to lower the pitch. Just 2-3 metres would probably enable another 8-10 rows (10,000 seats) in one easy step, and at the same time bring people closer to the pitch. I think Porto may have done similar at their former stadium, increasing the capacity substantially.
As did Benfica. Yes, this is a possible (and probably only) solution to increasing the capacity significantly.
I'd lower the pitch as much as possible and put in a majorly-efficient pitch drainage system, so that the
front row around the ground was still at least 6 feet above the playing surface. Why are the Dutch the
only ones who build their football grounds with the front-row of seats high above the pitch??



Tom, there has been a quick discussion on this in another thread, but I'll summarise the problems with digging down at Hampden:

- Three sides of the stadium are already dug down, which is why the vomatories in the stadium are about two thirds of the way back in the lower tiers. Digging down further and causing the vomatories to be (relatively) even further towards the back of the tier would be fairly undesirable in terms of egress and even health and safety.
You just, if necessary, realign the exit staircases.



The North Stand has a steeper rake than the other three sides of the stadium for some reason
I dont think that's true. Not in my experience of being there, anyway.



To be fair, I don't think the SFA actually paid very much towards the redevelopment of Hampden Park.... The development cost £70million, £30 million of which came from Lottery Funding and another £18m of which came from the Exchequer, while the remaining £22m came from the sale of debentures and private donations...
So the SFA just spunked away a ridiculous amount of money (£70m+) on, essentially,
a one-stand stadium given that they just concreted the West, North & East terracing
and bolted seats to it? Bear in mind, Celtic & Rangers both used to have similar-shaped
stadiums to Hampden. A main stand, and the rest of the ground an oval terracing.

In the very-late 1970s Rangers spent £10.5m rebuilding Ibrox into a mostly all-seater ground
by keeping their main stand and demolishing the terracing and building new stands closer to
the pitch. In the mid 1990s Celtic did the same at the cost of c.£34m, about the same in
real terms considering inflation, etc.

In the mid-late 1990s the SFA spent £70m on ONE NEW STAND (which has an underground road for the players.... :nuts: )

Why haven't the SFA been taken to task for their gross incompetencey?

Queens Park Football Club are amateurs - they have a 3G synthetic surface at Lesser Hampden
and should accept that and shut their traps. Back to blazered back-hand-friendly spineless
cowards again here, I suspect. There are Junior clubs who'd sell their right arms for a brand
new 3G pitch. And they have to PAY their players...



I love this stadium :cheers:
Why? It's a shit hole.




James H

^^^^ True true. Also Welcome to the forum

So the SFA just spunked away a ridiculous amount of money (£70m+) on, essentially,
a one-stand stadium given that they just concreted the West, North & East terracing
and bolted seats to it? Bear in mind, Celtic & Rangers both used to have similar-shaped
stadiums to Hampden. A main stand, and the rest of the ground an oval terracing.

In the very-late 1970s Rangers spent £10.5m rebuilding Ibrox into a mostly all-seater ground
by keeping their main stand and demolishing the terracing and building new stands closer to
the pitch. In the mid 1990s Celtic did the same at the cost of c.£34m, about the same in
real terms considering inflation, etc.

In the mid-late 1990s the SFA spent £70m on ONE NEW STAND (which has an underground road for the players.... :nuts: )

Why haven't the SFA been taken to task for their gross incompetencey?

Queens Park Football Club are amateurs - they have a 3G synthetic surface at Lesser Hampden
and should accept that and shut their traps. Back to blazered back-hand-friendly spineless
cowards again here, I suspect. There are Junior clubs who'd sell their right arms for a brand
new 3G pitch. And they have to PAY their players...




Why? It's a shit hole.




James H

Whilst I agree the SFA made a mess of it, in their defence the North, West and East stands were redeveloped while there was still no cash available. Then it became available with only the South Stand to go - hence the South Stand is among the best stands in europe, but isn't matched by the other 3 :(

Exactly,why do we have RED socks also.Whose the guy that decides things like this.?

Sure you aren't a Celtic fan?

Red has always been associated with Scotland in football, and always will be. We have had many a red away top down the years, and red socks on many a home strip.

Oh yeah, and one of our countries flags is red and yellow - a flag that has been associated with rugby and football fans for far, far longer than the saltire has (the saltire has only really begun to appear in the last 15 years or so)

Whilst I agree the SFA made a mess of it, in their defence the North, West and East stands were redeveloped while there was still no cash available. Then it became available with only the South Stand to go - hence the South Stand is among the best stands in europe, but isn't matched by the other 3 :(
The SFA began concreting the North, West and East terracings in 1982, the same
time that the amateur SRU were building a brand new two-tiered 15,000 seater
stand on the old east terracing at Murrayfield. The SFA did this as a back-up
plan whereby they'd bolt seats to the concrete. If this was their back-up plan
did they have anything else in mind??

Scotland at that time were qualifying for the World Cup everytime it came around.
Hampden had huge gates for Scotland games and Cup finals. Where did all the
money go? Straight into the pockets of the blazers, AFAIC.


Does anyone have any images of the 1980 plan for Hampden? IIRC it had a 62,000
capacity and had a one piece continuous roof and looked a bit like the old Wembley
from what I can remember about it. It was the plan that was called off after the
riot Cup Final of 1980 which, it's said, had bulldozers parked outside the ground
ready to commence work the monday after the game. The tories at the Scottish
Office were persuaded, partly by Rangers directors, not to bother spending money
on Hampden when there was a perfectly brand new stadium at Kinning Park. Of
course the contractors had to be paid off...



James H

Hampden should have been knocked down and built from scratch when it was redeveloped. The stands are too shallow and it shouldn't be an oval. It's basically a stadium from the 1800's with seats and a new roof.

I remember getting told about that new Hampden plan back in the 1980s, I remember nothing from the time - I wasn't born in the 80s but my dad has mentioned it before. pics would be great, or if any one knows any more about it I'd love to hear.

Iwa!.What are you talking aboot wee man?.The Scottish flag is dark blue wae a white cross.(The rampant lion is 90% gold,wae wee dods a rid.)
Hampden seats are crap,but not as bad as Murrayfield,when it had a stand,wae gray and broon seats.It reminded me of the Coventry city away strip from the 70s( a mixture of Grey,Dark Broon and Light broon.).Horrendous,is putting it mildely.

Why are the Dutch the only ones who build their football grounds with the front-row of seats high above the pitch??

Partly due to crowd violence. It makes it much harder to get on the pitch by creating a moat between the seats and the perimeter wall.

By doing that, it also means you don't need fences in front of the seats.

^^

I'd say not only in Holland. Also in nearly all the new German stadiums you'll find the front row seats extremely high above the pitch. The only difference is that the Dutch keep the concrete walls visible, the Germans on the other hand hide them behind gigantic publicity walls which makes the look a lot more attractive.

Some examples:

Hansa Rostock:
http://bjornkrohn.gmxhome.de/Hansa3.jpg

Schalke:
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/FC+Schalke+04+v+Bayern+Munich+WyjfRqyb7dyl.jpg

Dynamo Dresden:
http://www.dritteliga.net/board/dresden_stadion1.jpg

Leipzig:
http://www.jens-frank.com/foto-themen/stadien/08-zentralstadion-leipzig.jpg

The national stadium will be looking resplendent today for the Ayrshire Derby! Big card displays and flags organised by both teams. A derby Scotland can be proud of, none of this sectarian nonsense!

The national stadium will be looking resplendent today for the Ayrshire Derby! Big card displays and flags organised by both teams. A derby Scotland can be proud of, none of this sectarian nonsense!
Don't forget to upload photos afterwards! :)

Ayr United 0-1 Kilmarnock (AET)


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/399955_10150515745681441_593766440_9092039_72022031_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/395778_10150515744806441_593766440_9092035_1889767508_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/419512_10150515745346441_593766440_9092037_725702434_n.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/422287_261506857251829_159972490738600_599496_423241998_n.jpg