Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So many fans of the opinion that Hearts' attendances are going to drop further in the future and that we are not a realistic proposition to grow as a club if the infrastructure is in place. I despair at that attitude and just hate the fact that some see it as future. Saddens me a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbee647 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Does anyone know which came first - Tynecastle or the industries adjascent which are hampering redevelopment? If it's the latter, and on the assumption they were given planning permission to site their business next to a crowded football stadium, then surely there is a case for the Council excepting some responsibility in helping Hearts relocate (beyond the obvious benefits to the city as a whole)? Smiths and the NBD, were there before Hearts, in fact Gorgie was created to house the workers of these companies and also the Caley Distillery at Haymarket, This was on the outside of the city at this point and Hearts moved out to which was basicallyna green field site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 In 2005-6 the club would have needed to more than double the average attendance of 16.7k in order to fund the wage bill that it had at that time. Nearly 34k per game to make it work. Nobody is suggesting a stadium of that size and obviously we would not be able to fill it. Is this counting ticket prices alone? And ignoring new income streams that a proper stadium would bring? That team wasn't good enough to win the title. Nobody says we have to WIN the title every year, we just have to challenge. And as you well know, the challenge that year could have been much more successful were it not for 'outside factors'. Nor will a squad that an average attendance of c. 20k would provide when set against the enormous crowds at Rangers and Celtic. The Old Firm have always had bigger crowds, that hasn't stopped us coming second a good few times (or even 1st if you go back far enough!) There will be years when they're not invincible (or have points deductions for cheating the taxman etc. ) - we just have to be up there. The idea that a new stadium - even assuming it is given to Hearts on a 'cost-neutral' basis - would allow the club to 'challenge' is not credible in my view. It would certainly help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Would a newer, slightly larger, cheaper to run stadium enable us to reduce ticket prices, let kids in free with an adult etc etc? Thats the only way I see us putting substanially more bums on seats in the current economic climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Iam predicting in a few years time there will be another 500 CLUB type scheme for Hearts fans to contribute to refurbish the existing main stand at Tynecastle and make it safer or else to demolish it and put up a functional but relatively low cost replacement along the lines of the Wheatfield / Roseburn / Gorgie stands. I am predicting you'll be wrong. The last ones left us with reduced income and were probably a big factor in the deficit when Robinson left. To recap - fans paid ?500 to the club and the stands were duly built BUT each subscribing fan received goods/tickets to the value of ?100 for each of the next 6 years. That meant if you were buying a ST (then) for say ?200 the club were ?100 down in gate receipts for each subscriber for the next 6 seasons. A similar scenario occurred if instead the trade-in was for merchandise. It was a way of getting things done and was probably cheaper than a Bank loan but there was a price to pay down the line. Interestingly I don't think any other club has tried this method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Slightly off topoic maybe but the 500 club doiscount? If that was the way it went agaoin then surely one game a season in coorporate hospitality for six or whatever would be a better way of doing things no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 This thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyJenkins Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 People who say a new stadium cant be funded are wide of the mark imo, there are various ways of raising the money. The real issue is getting people to start looking at the bigger picture for Edinburgh and the surrounding area and not to see it as pro Hearts/anti Hibs. Or helping out a poorly managed private company at the tax payers expense as some folks have said. The capital of Scotland and it severely lacks facilities of a certain scale and quality ffs. If a new stadium/developments helps the trams be more viable then so be it. Lets have a bit of ambition eh instead of this "we'll never be this or we'll never be that" bollocks. As a country we are a bunch of moaning/short sited bassas at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Agree with coco , charlie broon regards new stadium its pie in the sky airy fairy stuff and we need to get real the funds are not and never likely to be the there, Does anyone know if the listed part of the main stand was " accidentally" demolished what the penalty would be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troonmaroon Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Agree with coco , charlie broon regards new stadium its pie in the sky airy fairy stuff and we need to get real the funds are not and never likely to be the there, Does anyone know if the listed part of the main stand was " accidentally" demolished what the penalty would be ? Um, nowt as it isn't listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Iam predicting in a few years time there will be another 500 CLUB type scheme for Hearts fans to contribute to refurbish the existing main stand at Tynecastle and make it safer or else to demolish it and put up a functional but relatively low cost replacement along the lines of the Wheatfield / Roseburn / Gorgie stands. I posted this scenario yesterday. We ain't going anywhere imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 To put it simply, the way I see it - Tynecastle is great on 3/4 sides of the pitch. 75% of our stadium is fantastic. All we need to do is fix the remaining 25% and we're sorted. Yet everyone seems to want to build a whole new ground. I just refuse to believe that re-developing the main stand isn't a viable option. Open your eyes and have a look again, 3/4 of our stadium might be newer and atmospheric, but it is far from fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Get a winning team on the park first, then concentrate on the stadium - not the other way round (i.e. the Hibs way, because look how far having a nice big ground has gotten them! ) Except the revenue isn't there with which to fund a winning team unless we grow the club - and we can't grow the club unless we move. After at least 15 years of speculating to accumulate only to fall flat on our face and just build up more debt, how many times do we have to learn this lesson until it is finally understood? Way back in the early 90s, when Norwich finished 3rd in the EPL and knocked Bayern Munich out of Europe, you know what size gates the club got? 14,000 if we were lucky - at a time football was far, far more competitive and 'democratic' than it is now. Hardly surprisingly, given such pathetically low crowds, the club completely over-reached itself in attempting to stay in touch, and fell into a 15 year period of decline. You know what gates Norwich get now? Over 26,000. And before people say: "That's just because the team's done so well over the last couple of years", Norwich have had average gates of 24,000 plus for NINE YEARS now - five of which, between 2004 and 2009, were utter, utter shite on the park. In 2009, Norwich fell into the third flight of English football for the first time in 49 years - yet the gates still averaged almost 25,000 the following season. Now, the club are planning to expand the capacity of Carrow Road to 35,000: because they know it's the only way with which NCFC can establish itself in the EPL in the long term. How have the club done this? By maximising all possible revenue making and entertainment facilities around the stadium - and through simply the finest commercial team in football. But Tynecastle offers no means for Hearts to maximise revenue; and if we didn't learn from Phil Anderton what's actually possible in no time at all with effective marketing, we'll never learn anything. Just imagine someone of Anderton's ilk, at a purpose built new stadium where Hearts aren't constantly struggling to breathe all the time. The population of Norwich is 260,000. The population of Edinburgh is 450,000. And yes, Edinburgh does have two clubs - but Hearts have a better history than Norwich, do a lot better in their domestic league than Norwich, play in Europe infinitely more often than Norwich, and bloody well ought to be a considerably bigger club than Norwich. Is anyone seriously telling me what Norwich have done is somehow impossible to emulate at HMFC? If so, why? As it stands right now, it's quite impossible for Hearts to grow at Tynecastle. Make do and mend - forever? How can people claim they have any ambition for this club at all when they're not prepared to allow it any chance of becoming successful and profitable? How do they suggest we ever stop this endless cycle of boom and bust - which dates back FOUR DECADES - if we don't finally move with the times? It's what tons of other clubs have done; what on Earth makes HMFC such a special case? Oh, one final thing. As Borthers has correctly pointed out, VR can't get out and sell us on if we aren't a viable football club. No new stadium = no escape route for Vlad, and no sustainable long term future for HMFC. So do people think a man in his mid-60s is going to keep plugging the yawning gap forever? What happens when he can't? And what sort of future is that anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonbe110 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Great post. It's the only way forward and I 'm sure that it's the cornerstone of Vlad's original and current strategy. I just wish he would hurry up, bite the bullet and get on with it. Even taking our average crowd to 20,000 would add ?2.5 million to income levels with virtually no increase in running costs other than a few extra stewards and police. ?2.5m extra income has the club making a profit even with today's inflated staff numbers and salaries. And that excludes all other income opportuities that a new stadium would offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoussetsShorts Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 There's zero point in a new stadium if the SPL stays in the same format. It needs more teams, more excitement, more relegation spots and the league cup needs a euro spot. Until you do that crowd numbers will stay as they are with small %'s either way. 3rd place at Tynecastle or a new stadium, doesn't really matter, we need a better more exciting league competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Edinburgh Council and development. There is the fundamental flaw with this new stadium guff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Oh, one final thing. As Borthers has correctly pointed out, VR can't get out and sell us on if we aren't a viable football club. No new stadium = no escape route for Vlad, and no sustainable long term future for HMFC. So do people think a man in his mid-60s is going to keep plugging the yawning gap forever? What happens when he can't? And what sort of future is that anyway? Old McVlad is going to have to a take a hammering on the debt or shut us down because a new stadium will not happen IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Old McVlad is going to have to a take a hammering on the debt or shut us down because a new stadium will not happen IMO. Can he and his bank afford to? If not, what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Which part of cost-neutral development don't you understand? I don't understand the phrase. Can you please explain what cost-neutral development is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can he and his bank afford to? If not, what then? Then the dominoes of his empire start to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoussetsShorts Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can he and his bank afford to? If not, what then? with a ?500 million plus fortune ?30 million is small change. I actually think in a normal situation he'd write it off tomorrow but his contempt for the scottish media/system means he'll hang around for the last laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can he and his bank afford to? If not, what then? We're doomed! But his bank has nothing to do with it. UBIG, his investment group, has already splurged tens of millions to create the debt and has already written off chunks of it. So there is no reason to believe they can't afford to write off chunks more. This endless circling around unanswerable questions seems a little pointless to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can he and his bank afford to? If not, what then? We'd be finished. Or maybe UBIG would fund the stadium themselves and extend the lease so we pay it off over 30-60 years. Lol, no chance of that, they want ECC to give them the land AND build it for them. P.S I'd like to be in the room when Vlad tries to get the UBIG top brass to abandon the debt because he's been caught with his ****** in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunks Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 I don't understand the phrase. Can you please explain what cost-neutral development is? As in zero cost to Hearts and the Council if they choose a particular commercial route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 We're doomed! But his bank has nothing to do with it. UBIG, his investment group, has already splurged tens of millions to create the debt and has already written off chunks of it. So there is no reason to believe they can't afford to write off chunks more. This endless circling around unanswerable questions seems a little pointless to me. Are we absolutely sure that UBIG and Ukio are effectively the same thing? Just asking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Edinburgh Council and development. There is the fundamental flaw with this new stadium guff. Correct. And even when the Council steels itself for a bit of infrastructure investment ... we get half an un-built tram line in the same time-scale as Bordeaux (for example) puts in a whole multi-line network. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Anyone that cannot see to move forward as a club we need to relocate to a modern facility is either a Hibs fan,WUM,or living in the 60`s. Thankfully it appears the majority can see the light. That's darn tootin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Are we absolutely sure that UBIG and Ukio are effectively the same thing? Just asking... I didn't suggest they were. UKIO is a bank and for one thing is regulated differently from UBIG, an investment group. So they are not the same thing, although I believe they have largely common ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I didn't suggest they were. UKIO is a bank and for one thing is regulated differently from UBIG, an investment group. So they are not the same thing, although I believe they have largely common ownership. But the debt's largely owed to Ukio. Can Vlad write it off, even if he wanted to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 But the debt's largely owed to Ukio. Can Vlad write it off, even if he wanted to? We don't owe UKIO anything. It's owed to UBIG, which has, through debt for equity, already written off a large chunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 But the debt's largely owed to Ukio. Can Vlad write it off, even if he wanted to? Hearts currently have no debt to Ukio Bankas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Stinkfinger Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 But the debt's largely owed to Ukio. Can Vlad write it off, even if he wanted to? No, he has a duty to the shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 But the debt's largely owed to Ukio. Can Vlad write it off, even if he wanted to? Lawssier FAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No, he has a duty to the shareholders. Which duty has not conflicted with effectively writing off large chunks of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 We don't owe UKIO anything. It's owed to UBIG, which has, through debt for equity, already written off a large chunk. Hearts currently have no debt to Ukio Bankas. No, he has a duty to the shareholders. Ah, apologies. The excellent Swiss Ramble piece on Romanov and Hearts reports that the debt was effectively transferred from Ukio to UBIG and another company called ImpExNet at the beginning of the last reported financial year. Is that where I got confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Are we absolutely sure that UBIG and Ukio are effectively the same thing? Just asking... Ukio Bankas are a publicly owned commercial bank. UBIG are a privately owned investment group. Fundamentally different. In fact I get the impression UBIG are almost VR's personal piggy bank, a vehicle he uses to 'invest'. If they haven't already written off Hearts debt as bad on their balance sheet then they are probably certifiably insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Ah, apologies. The excellent Swiss Ramble piece on Romanov and Hearts reports that the debt was effectively transferred from Ukio to UBIG and another company called ImpExNet a year or so ago. Is that where I got confused? No idea Shaun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Ah, apologies. The excellent Swiss Ramble piece on Romanov and Hearts reports that the debt was effectively transferred from Ukio to UBIG and another company called ImpExNet at the beginning of the last reported financial year. Is that where I got confused? Possibly, although I would have thought that should have been a source of enlightenment not confusion. Anyway, I am confirmed in my view that there is limited value in a bunch of untrained amateur economists/accountants (and I emphatrically include myself in that description) circling endlessly, Sergey-like, around the no doubt impenetrable intricacies of Vlad's finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Possibly, although I would have thought that should have been a source of enlightenment not confusion. Anyway, I am confirmed in my view that there is limited value in a bunch of untrained amateur economists/accountants (and I emphatrically include myself in that description) circling endlessly, Sergey-like, around the no doubt impenetrable intricacies of Vlad's finances. This is indeed true. Of myself, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Possibly, although I would have thought that should have been a source of enlightenment not confusion. Anyway, I am confirmed in my view that there is limited value in a bunch of untrained amateur economists/accountants (and I emphatrically include myself in that description) circling endlessly, Sergey-like, around the no doubt impenetrable intricacies of Vlad's finances. Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 As in zero cost to Hearts and the Council if they choose a particular commercial route Thanks for the explanation. Sounds great! Now where can I buy a cost-neutral Porsche...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 What Iam saying is unless they are very brave or foolhardy or the council then nobody will provide funding for a mid-sized stadium with 5K-10K more capacity than Tynecastle UNLESS they see a definite verifiable DEMAND for one ie Hearts selling out the current stadium and having waiting lists for several thousand more seats. To build one absent of any pent-up demand would be a very speculative and risky investment that I simply don't see getting funded anytime soon. I'm in agreement with you. In common with many posters, I'd like to know a few of the following things: 1) Where the money's coming from for the new stadium. (There seems to be a huge degree of overlap - coincidental I'm sure - in the posters who blithely assume money will be no object for a new stadium and posters who deride others for wishing Romanov away with the question "Where's the new owner coming from?") 2) What the assumption that our crowds will increase in a new stadium is based on. 3) What the assumption that Edinburgh currently needs more conference facilities, gyms etc - in a presumably not terribly attractive location miles from the city centre and not necessarily of first-class standard - is based on. 4) Why so many people who ripped into Robinson for "not fit for purpose" are now trotting out this particular party line like there's no tomorrow. 5) Why so many people are willing to jettison an inner-city jewel for an out-of-town flatpack. The writing is on the wall, as should have become clear from the statements on the official website in the last week or so. We're downsizing in terms of wages, playing staff and presumably short to medium-term prospects of much success. We don't nearly fill our current stadium most weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertarian Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I still think that if the Hearts are to leave Tynecastle and construct a new home then the club should not limit themselves to only talking to Edinburgh City Council, they should also talk to other possible councils who may be able to support such a venture. For example Straiton in Midlothian is close to the city by-pass and has excellent public transport links into Edinburgh city centre. This is only one site of a number of suitable locations outwith the borders of Edinburgh City Council but still to all intents and purposes part of the city. A new stadium could bring many benefits to the area of construction, particularly to local businesses. With 15,000 people converging on the area once or twice a fortnight and spending in the region of 100,000 - 200,000 in local businesses this could be a real opportunity for the council to create jobs and wealth in an area. This is the message that the club should be driving home to planning depts within and outwith the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 3) What the assumption that Edinburgh currently needs more conference facilities, gyms etc - in a presumably not terribly attractive location miles from the city centre and not necessarily of first-class standard - is based on. Match hospitality aside, this is regularly trotted out. Surely if we are after conference facilities and gyms and what not these things don't have to be bolted onto a stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Match hospitality aside, this is regularly trotted out. Surely if we are after conference facilities and gyms and what not these things don't have to be bolted onto a stadium. Do you mean we would/could acquire a separate location for such facilities and have a separate build? There's a nice bank building that could be converted ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 We're downsizing in terms of wages, playing staff and presumably short to medium-term prospects of much success. It occurred to me that I had heard this comment about addressing the wages issue somewhere before. In the 2008 accounts, the Directors Report announced, "The club reported positive progress in its aim of returning to profitability... aided by a 10% reduction in employment costs to ?11.3m (2007: ?12.49m)." In the 2010 accounts, wages were down to ?9.12m, so there undoubtedly has been some progress in this area. More still needs to be done. The same accounts also restated the Directors' intention to re-develop Tynecastle, "providing a new main stand to be constructed and fully operational in season 2011/12". Life was so much simpler then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Except the revenue isn't there with which to fund a winning team unless we grow the club - and we can't grow the club unless we move. After at least 15 years of speculating to accumulate only to fall flat on our face and just build up more debt, how many times do we have to learn this lesson until it is finally understood? Way back in the early 90s, when Norwich finished 3rd in the EPL and knocked Bayern Munich out of Europe, you know what size gates the club got? 14,000 if we were lucky - at a time football was far, far more competitive and 'democratic' than it is now. Hardly surprisingly, given such pathetically low crowds, the club completely over-reached itself in attempting to stay in touch, and fell into a 15 year period of decline. You know what gates Norwich get now? Over 26,000. And before people say: "That's just because the team's done so well over the last couple of years", Norwich have had average gates of 24,000 plus for NINE YEARS now - five of which, between 2004 and 2009, were utter, utter shite on the park. In 2009, Norwich fell into the third flight of English football for the first time in 49 years - yet the gates still averaged almost 25,000 the following season. Now, the club are planning to expand the capacity of Carrow Road to 35,000: because they know it's the only way with which NCFC can establish itself in the EPL in the long term. How have the club done this? By maximising all possible revenue making and entertainment facilities around the stadium - and through simply the finest commercial team in football. But Tynecastle offers no means for Hearts to maximise revenue; and if we didn't learn from Phil Anderton what's actually possible in no time at all with effective marketing, we'll never learn anything. Just imagine someone of Anderton's ilk, at a purpose built new stadium where Hearts aren't constantly struggling to breathe all the time. The population of Norwich is 260,000. The population of Edinburgh is 450,000. And yes, Edinburgh does have two clubs - but Hearts have a better history than Norwich, do a lot better in their domestic league than Norwich, play in Europe infinitely more often than Norwich, and bloody well ought to be a considerably bigger club than Norwich. Is anyone seriously telling me what Norwich have done is somehow impossible to emulate at HMFC? If so, why? As it stands right now, it's quite impossible for Hearts to grow at Tynecastle. Make do and mend - forever? How can people claim they have any ambition for this club at all when they're not prepared to allow it any chance of becoming successful and profitable? How do they suggest we ever stop this endless cycle of boom and bust - which dates back FOUR DECADES - if we don't finally move with the times? It's what tons of other clubs have done; what on Earth makes HMFC such a special case? Oh, one final thing. As Borthers has correctly pointed out, VR can't get out and sell us on if we aren't a viable football club. No new stadium = no escape route for Vlad, and no sustainable long term future for HMFC. So do people think a man in his mid-60s is going to keep plugging the yawning gap forever? What happens when he can't? And what sort of future is that anyway? Good post. The feel good factor that was suddenly created under Burley was incredible and there's no doubt that fireworks Phil was a big part of that. Those few weeks gave us a snap-shot of just how big a club Hearts could be. I am a massive fan of Tynecastle - but I am coming round to the view that moving is probably the right option in terms of growing the club. The problem is: where is the money (and the land) coming from? I cannot really see the Council getting involved in the next few years and that being the case I find it hard to see how we are going to fund a new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Do you mean we would/could acquire a separate location for such facilities and have a separate build? There's a nice bank building that could be converted ... :interesting: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 There is a 67,500 capacity stadium, located a stone's throw from Tynecastle, with excellent corporate facilities that Hearts could move to if we are looking to 'grow the club'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomb Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Smiths and the NBD, were there before Hearts, in fact Gorgie was created to house the workers of these companies and also the Caley Distillery at Haymarket, This was on the outside of the city at this point and Hearts moved out to which was basicallyna green field site not sure that's true, I think Nbd was built around same time as tynie and mac smith moved in around 1900. I think all companies mentioned above and hearts were involved in the generation of Gorgie dalry area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.