New stand

[WorldChampions1902]

My understanding is that planning is not the hardest part of this project, it was and is finance, I we can get the ?14m to finance it, then we can make it work.

Edinburgh council have been VERY accommodating so far in this process, willing to sell adult learning centre to us, (at market value) without going to wider market.

 

It's great to hear that Edinburgh council are supportive of our potential proposals and so they should be.

 

Unfortunately, any hint of the Council going out of their way to help our club is bound to attract a number of emailers from the Calimero fraternity. I just hope we release any news of Council assistance on a 'need to know basis' in order to minimise the grief that's bound to come their way. Not to mention more pathetic attempts at undermining our plans.

[Dave McCreery's knee]

My understanding is that planning is not the hardest part of this project, it was and is finance, I we can get the ?14m to finance it, then we can make it work.

Edinburgh council have been VERY accommodating so far in this process, willing to sell adult learning centre to us, (at market value) without going to wider market.

For the benefit of our obsessed friends from the east, if you are a neighbouring landowner, as Hearts are, then Council don't have to offer the site on open market, as long as they achieve market value.

[Phil D. Corners]

Crap seats on the left of the new stand in that mockup design. Wouldn't even see the goals due to the supporting frame blocking your view.

Also wouldn't see the goalline in the Roseburn.

Crap design.

In reality that supporting frame for the roseburn is further back.

[Phil D. Corners]

My understanding is that planning is not the hardest part of this project, it was and is finance, I we can get the ?14m to finance it, then we can make it work.

Edinburgh council have been VERY accommodating so far in this process, willing to sell adult learning centre to us, (at market value) without going to wider market.

 

I would say having good planing would make finance easy.

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

We'd prob have investigated filling in the corners if technically viable tbh.[emoji106]

 

 

So long as there is sufficient access for staging/plant/machinery/etc. to easily construct a stage for concerts and other uses for the stadium. At the moment there is no suitable access big enough for us to stage other events a Tynie. To maximise potential stadium income it must be more flexible IMO

[Ray Gin]

In reality that supporting frame for the roseburn is further back.

 

They have cut away several rows from the front of the stand as part of the design, that's why it appears so far forward. This means nobody in the roseburn would see the goal-line.

[primrose]

For the benefit of our obsessed friends from the east, if you are a neighbouring landowner, as Hearts are, then Council don't have to offer the site on open market, as long as they achieve market value.

 

 

 

Correct, the land / building has a market value, but if sold to a third party would likely stop a project that brings X times future revenue to the local area, hence not on the open market. This is all above board and is a normal process for a transaction of this type.

[Clerry Jambo]

It's great to hear that Edinburgh council are supportive of our potential proposals and so they should be.

 

Unfortunately, any hint of the Council going out of their way to help our club is bound to attract a number of emailers from the Calimero fraternity. I just hope we release any news of Council assistance on a 'need to know basis' in order to minimise the grief that's bound to come their way. Not to mention more pathetic attempts at undermining our plans.

Calimero Fraternity, bwhahahahahahahah brilliant mate, bunch o losers the lot of them!!

[SUTOL]

They have cut away several rows from the front of the stand as part of the design, that's why it appears so far forward. This means nobody in the roseburn would see the goal-line.

 

I wouldn't read too much into that sketch, and even if some rows at the front of the Roseburn had to go it wouldn't necessarily mean nobody seeing the goal line. 

 

And having sat in the first row after the concourse in the Gorgie stand, you can't see the goal-line in places there anyway. You can barely see the goals especially if people if the back row below the concourse stand up! 

[Tommy Brown]

Let's take a step back to the OP.

It was mentioned that plans of a wrap around stadium.

I take that as a new main stand wrapping around into the Roseburn. For this to happen I assume incorporating a new Roseburn which would be moved back to allow a longer pitch.

 

Looking at Google sattelite, building the Roseburn further back would mean the removal of a whole school wing.

Is this currently used at all? is the land for sale on the open market?

 

If my assumption is wrong and only a new stand with no pitch change, I would doubt that the extra 6k seats to take it to the 23k in the OP.

[Paulie Walnut]

Let's take a step back to the OP.

It was mentioned that plans of a wrap around stadium.

I take that as a new main stand wrapping around into the Roseburn. For this to happen I assume incorporating a new Roseburn which would be moved back to allow a longer pitch.

Looking at Google sattelite, building the Roseburn further back would mean the removal of a whole school wing.

Is this currently used at all? is the land for sale on the open market?

If my assumption is wrong and only a new stand with no pitch change, I would doubt that the extra 6k seats to take it to the 23k in the OP.

21k is the figure in total new stand approx 8k seats

[Pans Jambo]

21k is the figure in total new stand approx 8k seats

6K Wheatfield

10k new main stand

3.5k Gorgie

3.5k Roseburn

23k ish

Give or take a couple of hundred

[Paulie Walnut]

6K Wheatfield

10k new main stand

3.5k Gorgie

3.5k Roseburn

23k ish

Give or take a couple of hundred

The new stand is not going to be 10k

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

The new stand is not going to be 10k

Why not? Genuinely not heard anything to suggest contrary to that. Budge has given two statements that I can remember, one saying she wants to renovate Tynecastle and build a new stand on site, the other was that we have a window to renovate to the tune of 20-21k, but we need to move quickly. Cannot see how else we would do it.

[SUTOL]

Looking at Google sattelite, building the Roseburn further back would mean the removal of a whole school wing.

Is this currently used at all? is the land for sale on the open market?

 

 

The buildings that were formally Tynecastle High School were bought by the North British Distillery. 

Some of the buildings or parts of the buildings are protected by having a Listed B status. 

 

You'll also see in Google Earth that other distillery buildings are closer to the stand than the former school buildings. 

 

Whilst the distillery are good, helpful neighbours I'm not sure how easy it would be to just buy some of their land etc. 

 

 

I suppose the things that we should clarify are:  

What are the implications of keeping the existing pitch length, with regard to Euro tournaments? 

If we have to extend it, what minimum length do we need? 

[Ray Gin]

even if some rows at the front of the Roseburn had to go it wouldn't necessarily mean nobody seeing the goal line. 

 

It would if they also moved the goals back, which would be the key reason for removing the rows in the first place.

[Yoda]

The buildings that were formally Tynecastle High School were bought by the North British Distillery. 

Some of the buildings or parts of the buildings are protected by having a Listed B status. 

 

You'll also see in Google Earth that other distillery buildings are closer to the stand than the former school buildings. 

 

Whilst the distillery are good, helpful neighbours I'm not sure how easy it would be to just buy some of their land etc. 

 

 

I suppose the things that we should clarify are:  

What are the implications of keeping the existing pitch length, with regard to Euro tournaments? 

If we have to extend it, what minimum length do we need? 

Does the B listed status stop us from knocking any of it down? 

 

As the council will be more likely to look favourably on a Hearts request to knock down part of the building, perhaps the distillery will be happy to work with Hearts to get their own way with the rest of the building?

[fabienleclerq]

Am I the only one that thinks the pitch being fit for European football shouldn't come into it massively? How many games are we ever likely to play in Europe? Say we start qualifying regularly we'll play two games at home if we're lucky, two games at murrayfield us fine.

[SUTOL]

It would if they also moved the goals back, which would be the key reason for removing the rows in the first place.

 

Not necessarily, it would depend on how many rows. 

[SUTOL]

Am I the only one that thinks the pitch being fit for European football shouldn't come into it massively? How many games are we ever likely to play in Europe? Say we start qualifying regularly we'll play two games at home if we're lucky, two games at murrayfield us fine.

 

That's why I said we should clarify exactly what the situation is.

 

e.g. If making the pitch longer by 2 meters is all that is needed then I'm sure we could work with that easily enough. If the pitch and run-off need to be 10 meters longer than that becomes a big issue. 

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

I'd want us to be able to play European games at Tynecastle. If we upgrade the stadium, it should be UEFA compliant. We should have ambitions to try and reach the group stages of the Europa League, and a refurbished Tynecastle would be sensational to watch that from. Imo.

[fabienleclerq]

I'd want us to be able to play European games at Tynecastle. If we upgrade the stadium, it should be UEFA compliant. We should have ambitions to try and reach the group stages of the Europa League, and a refurbished Tynecastle would be sensational to watch that from. Imo.

Is it worth the expense though? Chances of us being in the group stages regularly are slim.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Is it worth the expense though? Chances of us being in the group stages regularly are slim.

I'd need to leave that to the number-monkeys and bean-counters, but I have been impressed with the actions and noises coming from the club on things like infrastructure. Just purely from a personal selfish point of view, I want to see us back up the top end of the league, aiming for reaching the group stages of the EL and playing in front of good crowds at Tynecastle. I accept that I may not get everything I want however.

[Francis Albert]

Am I the only one that thinks the pitch being fit for European football shouldn't come into it massively? How many games are we ever likely to play in Europe? Say we start qualifying regularly we'll play two games at home if we're lucky, two games at murrayfield us fine.

No you are not alone. We are lucky to have Murrayfield ten minutes walk away. Even if Tynecastle could be made fully UEFA compliant it would never accommodate the crowds we could (and did) get for EL Group games (or even EL/CL qualifiers)

[stan]

It would if they also moved the goals back, which would be the key reason for removing the rows in the first place.

Could that be overcome by the raising of the pitch level? It would probably mean the loss of the front row on all three existing stands, but would perhaps allow some movement towards Roseburn end. I agree it may not be worth doing, but may allow some additional space if restrictions are marginal.

 

I have heard of pitches being dug down the way - Bari 1990 comes to mind - where the pitch is way below ground level as it exists outside. Monaco is the only one I can think of where the pitch is raised...albeit there are big car parks below and not many seats above the pitch

[Pans Jambo]

The new stand is not going to be 10k

Yes it will be...so there

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Is it worth the expense though? Chances of us being in the group stages regularly are slim.

 

Many of the needed upgrades to get UEFA compliance don't have to do with the pitch, but with media support, VIP facilities, and corporate and such that provide revenue even absent UEFA games.

 

And I don't see as much Europa League as most of you, but I wonder about the second bit.   This year's group stages include FC Midtjylland, Gabala FC, and FC Slovan Liberec, all of which play in small stadia and are located in towns considerably smaller than Edinburgh.  I'm not saying let's bank on a trip every year, but a well-run Hearts club that doesn't get rotten luck in the draws (like Liverpool and Spurs!) I would think could expect to see the group stages at least every five years or so.

[fabienleclerq]

Many of the needed upgrades to get UEFA compliance don't have to do with the pitch, but with media support, VIP facilities, and corporate and such that provide revenue even absent UEFA games.

 

And I don't see as much Europa League as most of you, but I wonder about the second bit. This year's group stages include FC Midtjylland, Gabala FC, and FC Slovan Liberec, all of which play in small stadia and are located in towns considerably smaller than Edinburgh. I'm not saying let's bank on a trip every year, but a well-run Hearts club that doesn't get rotten luck in the draws (like Liverpool and Spurs!) I would think could expect to see the group stages at least every five years or so.

Liverpool and Spurs were great draws!

[johnking123]

Murrayfield is ok. But means the club does not get all the money. Plus we will miss out on the occasional international friendly. All extra money for the club,

[johnking123]

The new stand is not going to be 10k

Correct, its just slightly over the 10k.

[Tasavallan]

No you are not alone. We are lucky to have Murrayfield ten minutes walk away. Even if Tynecastle could be made fully UEFA compliant it would never accommodate the crowds we could (and did) get for EL Group games (or even EL/CL qualifiers)

 

I agree.  Let Tynecastle be fit for SPFL purposes and use Murrayfield as an option for EL/CL group games should Hearts ever make it out of the qualifiers.  However, keep Tynecastle for European (knock-out) qualifiers as it is a definite benefit while Murrayfield isn't.. .  

 

Watching Australian rugby league games where Sydney based clubs are contracted by the NRL to play home games at Sydney's ANZ Stadium (cap. 83,000) with crowds of less than 20,000 must be disheartening for players playing with little crowd atmosphere.    

[johnking123]

Not sure you aloud to swap venues during the competition.

[johnking123]

Plus, you would be have to be off your nut to spend ?14 million on the stadium and not have it meet all the specifications!

[Buffalo Bill]

The new stand is not going to be 10k

 

Brian Cormack is keen on a 23,000 capacity which would suggest a 10,000-seater Main Stand. If we get control of the McLeod St buildings then it's do-able.

[DG_HMFC]

What's this chat of using Murrayfield for European games? 

 

Tynecastle should be where we play every home game, not a soulless rugby stadium. Tynecastle gives us an edge, and to take that edge away in what would be important fixtures is just madness.

 

The good thing is is that I'm pretty sure Ann and whoever is helping with the plans for a new Main Stand, is taking all UEFA standards and guidlines into account before any work starts.

 

Tynecastle should/will be fully UEFA compliant, or there really isn't any point.

[jb66]

If we were to half ticket prices for a whole season how big a crowd could we get at murrayfield?

[I.T.K]

What's this chat of using Murrayfield for European games? 

 

Tynecastle should be where we play every home game, not a soulless rugby stadium. Tynecastle gives us an edge, and to take that edge away in what would be important fixtures is just madness.

 

The good thing is is that I'm pretty sure Ann and whoever is helping with the plans for a new Main Stand, is taking all UEFA standards and guidlines into account before any work starts.

 

Tynecastle should/will be fully UEFA compliant, or there really isn't any point.

 

I'm pretty sure we could get exceptions on any standards we don't meet if we provide a good reason.

 

I'm still not sure what standards, if any, we are non compliant against. The issue has been mentioned for years, yet we have had several European games and Scotland games at Tynecastle with no issue.

[Francis Albert]

What's this chat of using Murrayfield for European games? 

 

Tynecastle should be where we play every home game, not a soulless rugby stadium. Tynecastle gives us an edge, and to take that edge away in what would be important fixtures is just madness.

 

The good thing is is that I'm pretty sure Ann and whoever is helping with the plans for a new Main Stand, is taking all UEFA standards and guidlines into account before any work starts.

 

Tynecastle should/will be fully UEFA compliant, or there really isn't any point.

The question was whether making the pitch UEFA compliant should be a dominant or over-riding criterion. Of course if we can we should but if the choice is between making the pitch size fully compliant or increasing capacity then I think I would go for the latter. Or at least it is a serious question to consider.

[I.T.K]

From Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynecastle_Stadium

 

Later in 2005, the pitch dimensions were altered to meet UEFA standards, necessitating the removal of the lowest rows of seating in the Gorgie and Roseburn Stands. As a result, the overall capacity was reduced from 18,000 to 17,420.

 

 

The Roseburn Stand seated 3,676 when it was opened,^[13] but 280 seats were removed from both it and the Gorgie Stand when the pitch was lengthened in 2005 to meet UEFA requirements.

[topcat]

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/01/48/48/90/1484890_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

13.01 Unless stipulated otherwise in these regulations, matches in the competition

must be played in a stadium which meets the structural criteria of the

following categories as defined in the UEFA Stadium Infrastructure

Regulations (2010 edition):

a) category 2 for the first and second qualifying rounds;

category 3 for the third qualifying round;

c) category 4 from the play-offs to the semi-finals.

The final must be played in a stadium which meets the structural criteria as

defined in the staging agreement.

Exceptions to a structural criterion

 

13.02 The UEFA administration may grant an exception to a specific structural

criterion for the stadium category in question in cases of particular hardship

and upon reasoned request, for instance owing to the current national

legislation or if the fulfilment of all the required criteria would force a club to

play its home matches on the territory of another national association. An

exception can be granted for one or more matches in the competition or for

the whole duration of the competition. Such decisions are final. 

 

 

 

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Stadium&Security/01/48/48/85/1484885_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

Category 1 Structural criteria

Section 1: Areas relating to players and officials

Article 29 - Field of Play

The field of play must be: 

a) 100-105m Long; and  

64-68m wide.

 

Category 2 Structural criteria

Section 1: Areas relating to players and officials

Article 42 - Field of Play

The field of play must be: 

a) 100-105m Long; and  

 64-68m wide.

 

Category 3 Structural criteria

Section 1: Areas relating to players and officials

Article 56 - Field of Play

The field of play must be: 

a) 105m Long; and  

 68m wide.

 

Category 4 Structural criteria

Section 1: Areas relating to players and officials

Article 71 - Field of Play

The field of play must be: 

a) 105m Long; and  

 68m wide.

[Francis Albert]

From Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynecastle_Stadium

 

Later in 2005, the pitch dimensions were altered to meet UEFA standards, necessitating the removal of the lowest rows of seating in the Gorgie and Roseburn Stands. As a result, the overall capacity was reduced from 18,000 to 17,420.

 

 

The Roseburn Stand seated 3,676 when it was opened,^%5B13%5D but 280 seats were removed from both it and the Gorgie Stand when the pitch was lengthened in 2005 to meet UEFA requirements.

We then met UEFA requirements for qualifying rounds. And as someone has said there are a whole raft of other requirements for group and later rounds like media facilities and VIP seating areas as well as a larger pitch size. In practice clubs in old grounds often get some or all of these waived so it is not clear how real an issue it is. I still think if the choice were say a 23,000 capacity ground that was not compliant for European group matches or a 20,000 capacity that was fully compliant the frequency of group and later stage European games would not justify foregoing the extra capacity for our "bread and butter" domestic games. As for international games, Tynecastle would be fine for friendlies and probably qualifiers against the likes of the Faroes or San Marino, Gibraltar or Andorra (how compliant are their grounds?)which is the most the SFA would ever let us have.

[Gorgie_Rules]

We are so far off being involved in the Europa League group stages. The reality is until Rangers start to build up their co-efficient points and Celtic stop under achieving year after year in Europe, we wont see a non-Old Firm side play more than 2 ties. Points are taken into account over a 5 year peroid, Rangers have accumulated almost nothing over that time (im not even sure if the newco kept the points of oldco?)

 

However as pointed out by others, smaller clubs than Hearts from nations that generally perform well have made it. If Celtic and Rangers start to perform as they should in Europe (as in prove their worth as big clubs), Scotland will return to where it should be in Europe and we'll benefit from that through entering later and higher co-efficient. The chances of seeing Hearts in Europa League group stages is at very least 4 or 5 years away. Based on crowds we got last time in the group stages, 35,000ish, we would be mad not to cash in at Murrayfield for the 3 ties. Play the qualifiers at Tynecastle then if make the groups play the rest at Murrayfield.

 

If its going to cause major issues and alot more money to make the stadium compliant for Europa League group stages then it really needs to be weighed up seriously

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

We are so far off being involved in the Europa League group stages. The reality is until Rangers start to build up their co-efficient points and Celtic stop under achieving year after year in Europe, we wont see a non-Old Firm side play more than 2 ties. Points are taken into account over a 5 year peroid, Rangers have accumulated almost nothing over that time (im not even sure if the newco kept the points of oldco?)

 

However as pointed out by others, smaller clubs than Hearts from nations that generally perform well have made it. If Celtic and Rangers start to perform as they should in Europe (as in prove their worth as big clubs), Scotland will return to where it should be in Europe and we'll benefit from that through entering later and higher co-efficient. The chances of seeing Hearts in Europa League group stages is at very least 4 or 5 years away. Based on crowds we got last time in the group stages, 35,000ish, we would be mad not to cash in at Murrayfield for the 3 ties. Play the qualifiers at Tynecastle then if make the groups play the rest at Murrayfield.

 

If its going to cause major issues and alot more money to make the stadium compliant for Europa League group stages then it really needs to be weighed up seriously

I disagree. I think we will finish in the league spots for qualification games this season. We might not make it in to the groups for next season, but if not, the season after that, or the next season again, I see no reason whatsoever why we cannot.

[Francis Albert]

We are so far off being involved in the Europa League group stages. The reality is until Rangers start to build up their co-efficient points and Celtic stop under achieving year after year in Europe, we wont see a non-Old Firm side play more than 2 ties. Points are taken into account over a 5 year peroid, Rangers have accumulated almost nothing over that time (im not even sure if the newco kept the points of oldco?)

 

However as pointed out by others, smaller clubs than Hearts from nations that generally perform well have made it. If Celtic and Rangers start to perform as they should in Europe (as in prove their worth as big clubs), Scotland will return to where it should be in Europe and we'll benefit from that through entering later and higher co-efficient. The chances of seeing Hearts in Europa League group stages is at very least 4 or 5 years away. Based on crowds we got last time in the group stages, 35,000ish, we would be mad not to cash in at Murrayfield for the 3 ties. Play the qualifiers at Tynecastle then if make the groups play the rest at Murrayfield.

 

If its going to cause major issues and alot more money to make the stadium compliant for Europa League group stages then it really needs to be weighed up seriously

Going off topic but I totally disagree with the idea we are reliant on Celtic and Rangers success in Europe to have any chance of progressing to the Group stages. I have no problem with starting in the early qualifying rounds. If we can't beat the teams we face there, as Scottish clubs have all too frequently failed to do against teams they should be perfectly capable of beating (and in fact Hearts are a bit of an exception to that rule)then what are we doing in the Group and later stages? And OF success in Europe makes them even richer and forever dominant domestically.

 

I agree with your line on the stadium though.

[Allowayjambo1874]

Many of the needed upgrades to get UEFA compliance don't have to do with the pitch, but with media support, VIP facilities, and corporate and such that provide revenue even absent UEFA games.

 

And I don't see as much Europa League as most of you, but I wonder about the second bit.   This year's group stages include FC Midtjylland, Gabala FC, and FC Slovan Liberec, all of which play in small stadia and are located in towns considerably smaller than Edinburgh.  I'm not saying let's bank on a trip every year, but a well-run Hearts club that doesn't get rotten luck in the draws (like Liverpool and Spurs!) I would think could expect to see the group stages at least every five years or so.

 

Given our seeding status we are going to have to get a very decent draw in the play offs and play at the top of our game to get through the play offs to reach the group stage, in the past it wasn't really rotten luck. The teams you mention for example beat Southampton, Panathinaikos & Hadjuk Split respectively, not sure we could've beaten any of those 3 over two legs. It may be some time before we reach a group stage (hopefully I am wrong of course) but with that in mind it maybe gives us a bit of time to get the stadium compliant. You are correct regards the teams mentioned but they have very small stadia, we could knock down the main stand and get an all singing & dancing stand, fully compliant with everything required but it would only have 4k capacity or something.

 

If we are allowed to switch stadia during the competition (which I was under the impression couldn't be done) then for once I'm with FA, we should increase Tynie to maximum capacity complying with SPL minima and if we get through to the later stages in Europe switch to Murrayfield.

[Francis Albert]

The different ground criteria at different stages that Top Cat set out only make sense if teams can switch grounds. Otherwise teams in grounds adequate for qualifiers but not later rounds would be kicked out if they got through the qualifiers. Surely not even UEFA could do that?

[Gorgie_Rules]

I disagree. I think we will finish in the league spots for qualification games this season. We might not make it in to the groups for next season, but if not, the season after that, or the next season again, I see no reason whatsoever why we cannot.

 

I think we will qualify for Europe, its just the position Scotland is in and our own co-efficient means we would have to come through mulitple ties against much bigger clubs in order to stand a chance at the groups

 

Going off topic but I totally disagree with the idea we are reliant on Celtic and Rangers success in Europe to have any chance of progressing to the Group stages. I have no problem with starting in the early qualifying rounds. If we can't beat the teams we face there, as Scottish clubs have all too frequently failed to do against teams they should be perfectly capable of beating (and in fact Hearts are a bit of an exception to that rule)then what are we doing in the Group and later stages? And OF success in Europe makes them even richer and forever dominant domestically.I agree with your line on the stadium though.

As above, the standard of teams in those rounds is too high for us to come through. If you go in at a later round with the chance of being seeded then making the groups is much more achievable, unfortunately our (and Scotlands) co-efficient won't improve until the Old Firm start perfoming as the size of clubs they are. When Scotland was 11th we had 1 team straight in champions league groups and the other in a qualifier, which if lost went into europa league groups.

 

I'm of the opinion that the only way we can seriously take the club to another level is by making the groups, reinvesting the millions we make from it then repeat. Unfortunately as things are we won't be able to achieve that by entering the 2nd qualifying round and knocking everyone out on the way, have a look at the calibre of teams, its pretty much impossible, we need help from an improved co-efficient

 

Appriciate this is going slightly off topic but the redeveloped Tynecastle's UEFA compliance is an important consideration

[topcat]

The different ground criteria at different stages that Top Cat set out only make sense if teams can switch grounds. Otherwise teams in grounds adequate for qualifiers but not later rounds would be kicked out if they got through the qualifiers. Surely not even UEFA could do that?

That was my interpretation as well

 

If and when we get through to the playoffs or group stages then we'll not be drawing enough people to fill Murrayfield but there should be enough of us to make it feel busy.

 

It may not be ideal but at least we wouldn't have already been playing Icelandic plumbers in July in a 67,000 stadium

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Francis Albert]

I think we will qualify for Europe, its just the position Scotland is in and our own co-efficient means we would have to come through mulitple ties against much bigger clubs in order to stand a chance at the groups

 

As above, the standard of teams in those rounds is too high for us to come through. If you go in at a later round with the chance of being seeded then making the groups is much more achievable, unfortunately our (and Scotlands) co-efficient won't improve until the Old Firm start perfoming as the size of clubs they are. When Scotland was 11th we had 1 team straight in champions league groups and the other in a qualifier, which if lost went into europa league groups.

 

I'm of the opinion that the only way we can seriously take the club to another level is by making the groups, reinvesting the millions we make from it then repeat. Unfortunately as things are we won't be able to achieve that by entering the 2nd qualifying round and knocking everyone out on the way, have a look at the calibre of teams, its pretty much impossible, we need help from an improved co-efficient

 

Appriciate this is going slightly off topic but the redeveloped Tynecastle's UEFA compliance is an important consideration

If Rangers and Celtic are good enough and successful enough in Europe to improve our coefficient greatly then the likelihood of us getting even into the CL qualifiers will be small. We might have an improved chance of getting to the EL group stage but that won't happen every year and there are not enough millions in that to take us to a higher level through an occasional EL group qualification. Our primary aim should be to be competitive (and attractive to watch) in Scotland and keeping a larger ground full for most if not all domestic gamesFurther enriching Celtic and Rangers completely counters that.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

I think we will qualify for Europe, its just the position Scotland is in and our own co-efficient means we would have to come through mulitple ties against much bigger clubs in order to stand a chance at the groups

 

As above, the standard of teams in those rounds is too high for us to come through. If you go in at a later round with the chance of being seeded then making the groups is much more achievable, unfortunately our (and Scotlands) co-efficient won't improve until the Old Firm start perfoming as the size of clubs they are. When Scotland was 11th we had 1 team straight in champions league groups and the other in a qualifier, which if lost went into europa league groups.

 

I'm of the opinion that the only way we can seriously take the club to another level is by making the groups, reinvesting the millions we make from it then repeat. Unfortunately as things are we won't be able to achieve that by entering the 2nd qualifying round and knocking everyone out on the way, have a look at the calibre of teams, its pretty much impossible, we need help from an improved co-efficient

 

Appriciate this is going slightly off topic but the redeveloped Tynecastle's UEFA compliance is an important consideration

Aye, it certainly wouldn't be a procession to the quarters or anything like that, but a lot of Scottish clubs with less resources than us have got to the final hurdle before the league rounds, and just fell short, so I could see us going a step further at some point in the near future. Who knows though, we could just as easily get pumped out before then. I just don't see it as an unrealistic target, especially since we've done it before in the UEFA cup with a team full of superstars like Neilson, McFarlane, Pereira and McAlister.