Malinga the Swinga Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 See that Scotland are asking to host 2 games in the latter stages of Euro 2020. This would be at an estimated cost of ?9 million to the economy with only a small chance of regaining money. Most countries have nominated their capital but we are putting forward Glasgow. What benefit to the rest of the country will having these games hosted in Scotland actually bring, and does it not highlight the stupidity of having a national stadium in a city already having 2 large grounds, albeit grounds built upon hatred and bigotry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomadJambo Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I think it be a shame for us to totally miss out on having any games staged in our country, seeing as the tournament is here anyway. Of course, a redeveloped 80,000 seater Tynecasle, would be a better choice of venue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expert on the subject Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 We should be ?allowed? of course to have one minor game , but tbh there are far superior venues out there , why we would be chosen on merit would be questionable Games will go to the economic and football heavyweights the scraps to the rest When we bid for the Euros all those years back Uefa said they were most impressed with Murrayfield , shows how crap they think the rest of the grounds were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ?9m?! How the **** can it cost so much to put in a football match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Parmesan Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Source for the cost and potential (lack of) money being recouped? Link or something. Genuinely interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ?9m?! How the **** can it cost so much to put in a football match? Hibs.net doing the maths on this one per chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hmfc Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 :rofl: **** no. Closest Scotland will get to participating in the latter stages of any competition, not while the big teams like Norway are in our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I can't see how it can be a bad thing to have 2 games of a major championship played in Scotland, regardless of the city or stadium they might choose to play them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton Peck Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I'm guessing UEFA will stipulate that these games will have to be held in one of their Elite level stadiums they have graded. Glasgow has two of these. http://www.wikistadiums.org/uefa-elite-stadiums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Would be good to have it. Would be even better if the SFA removed their heads from their rectums and partnered up with the SRU to use Hampden and Murrayfield. Whilst some will disagree with me - i do believe the SFA should have attempted to purchase/share Murrayfield instead of redeveloping Hampden. The SRU were cash strapped and there could have been a good deal on the cards - but no - the Weegies saw fit to screw the game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Source for the cost and potential (lack of) money being recouped? Link or something. Genuinely interested. Source was Sportsound, Radio Scotland. You need to have either 2 big teams to make it a sell out or else you stand to lose money. Guess the costs are to do with security, paying for all big wigs and hangers on along with EUFA wanting to make cash out of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 We should be ?allowed? of course to have one minor game , but tbh there are far superior venues out there , why we would be chosen on merit would be questionable Games will go to the economic and football heavyweights the scraps to the rest Now that the tournament involves 24 teams Only the serious heavyweights (German, England, Italy, France, Spain, maybe Russia) are able to consider hosting an entire tournament and even partnering up for a twin country bid is going to be tricky for countries who could previously have managed. Part of the point of the continent wide format will allow smaller countries like Scotland, Serbia, Belgium and Denmark to get a taste of hosting even if they can no longer look to at having the whole thing. That's why Scotland may well get a few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I'm guessing UEFA will stipulate that these games will have to be held in one of their Elite level stadiums they have graded. Glasgow has two of these. http://www.wikistadi...-elite-stadiums Some countries are bidding on the basis of stadia that have yet to actually be built or are scheduled for upgrade so it would be possible to bid to stage games in Edinburgh on the basis that Murrayfield can be got through the "Elite" validation However that would involve the SFA staging a showpiece event in the SRU stadium Luckily for the SFA however its main competitor, the FAI, is offering to stage games in the Aviva while Croke Park sits empty so they're both handicapped by about the same degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Gordons Gloves Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Source was Sportsound, Radio Scotland. You need to have either 2 big teams to make it a sell out or else you stand to lose money. Guess the costs are to do with security, paying for all big wigs and hangers on along with EUFA wanting to make cash out of games. so there isn't actually any cost to the economy - it's a cost to the SFA? I don't think it is a bad idea at all. Aside from Hampden being pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.