New stand

[kila]

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.

 

One thing to remember is the earlier qualifying rounds start before the new season has even kicked off, so players are rusty. That's why they are hard games to win.

[Neil Jung]

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.

If a job's worth doing it's worth doing properly. Pitch needs to be bigger for various reasons not least giving us the opportunity to play a more expansive game. If we didn't do it now we'd kick ourselves in years to come.

[topcat]

I got the latest rules and as far as I can see you should play all your games in one stadium but it's only when you get to the group stages that it's actually mandatory

 

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/23/69/59/2236959_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

 

Article 22 Venues and kick-off times

 

22.01 As a rule, matches in the UEFA Europa League kick off at 19.00CET or 21.05CET.

The UEFA administration sets the kick-off times on the basis of the draw.

Exceptions to this rule can be made by the UEFA administration.

III ? Match Scheduling 23

 

22.02 In principle, the fixtures within a group on the last matchday are played

simultaneously. The UEFA administration is authorised to fix the kick-off times.

 

22.03 In principle, quarter-finals and semi-finals kick off at 21.05CET. Exceptions to this

rule can be made by the UEFA administration.

 

22.04 In principle, the final kicks off at 20.45CET.

 

22.05 In principle, a club must play all its matches in the competition at one and the

same venue. As of the group stage the venue can be changed only based on a

UEFA decision. A venue may be the ground of the home club or another ground

in the same or another city within the territory of its association, or, if so decided

by the UEFA administration and/or the UEFA disciplinary bodies, in the territory of

another UEFA member association for reasons of safety or as a result of a

disciplinary measure. In principle, venues are approved only if direct international

flights and/or charter flights are able to land within an acceptable distance of the

venue, in the country of the club concerned. If the match is being played in

another city or country, the venue is subject to the approval of the UEFA

administration.

 

22.06 If, at any time during the season, the UEFA administration deems that, for

whatever reason, a venue may not be fit for staging a match, UEFA may consult

the association and club concerned and ask them to propose an alternative

venue, in accordance with the UEFA requirements. Should such an association and

club not be able to propose an acceptable alternative venue by the deadline set

by the UEFA administration, UEFA may select an alternative, neutral venue. The

club concerned will have to make all the necessary arrangements for the staging

of the match together with the relevant association and local authorities. In both

cases, the costs of staging the match are borne by the home club. The UEFA

administration takes a final decision on such match venue in due time.

 

22.07 The date and venue of the final are chosen by the Executive Committee.

[Francis Albert]

If a job's worth doing it's worth doing properly. Pitch needs to be bigger for various reasons not least giving us the opportunity to play a more expansive game. If we didn't do it now we'd kick ourselves in years to come.

Ideally yes, but if that conflicts with other objectives (staying at Tynecastle or increasing the capacity by an economically viable number) then there is a decision to be made. If (and like I think almost all the discussion on this thread it is speculation) the extra length of over 16 feet and the width of 13 feet could only be achieved by moving from Tynecastle I suspect most would be prepared to sacrifice a few square feet.

[Francis Albert]

I got the latest rules and as far as I can see you should play all your games in one stadium but it's only when you get to the group stages that it's actually mandatory

 

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/23/69/59/2236959_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

 

Article 22 Venues and kick-off times

 

22.01 As a rule, matches in the UEFA Europa League kick off at 19.00CET or 21.05CET.

The UEFA administration sets the kick-off times on the basis of the draw.

Exceptions to this rule can be made by the UEFA administration.

III ? Match Scheduling 23

 

22.02 In principle, the fixtures within a group on the last matchday are played

simultaneously. The UEFA administration is authorised to fix the kick-off times.

 

22.03 In principle, quarter-finals and semi-finals kick off at 21.05CET. Exceptions to this

rule can be made by the UEFA administration.

 

22.04 In principle, the final kicks off at 20.45CET.

 

22.05 In principle, a club must play all its matches in the competition at one and the

same venue. As of the group stage the venue can be changed only based on a

UEFA decision. A venue may be the ground of the home club or another ground

in the same or another city within the territory of its association, or, if so decided

by the UEFA administration and/or the UEFA disciplinary bodies, in the territory of

another UEFA member association for reasons of safety or as a result of a

disciplinary measure. In principle, venues are approved only if direct international

flights and/or charter flights are able to land within an acceptable distance of the

venue, in the country of the club concerned. If the match is being played in

another city or country, the venue is subject to the approval of the UEFA

administration.

 

22.06 If, at any time during the season, the UEFA administration deems that, for

whatever reason, a venue may not be fit for staging a match, UEFA may consult

the association and club concerned and ask them to propose an alternative

venue, in accordance with the UEFA requirements. Should such an association and

club not be able to propose an acceptable alternative venue by the deadline set

by the UEFA administration, UEFA may select an alternative, neutral venue. The

club concerned will have to make all the necessary arrangements for the staging

of the match together with the relevant association and local authorities. In both

cases, the costs of staging the match are borne by the home club. The UEFA

administration takes a final decision on such match venue in due time.

 

22.07 The date and venue of the final are chosen by the Executive Committee.

They like the "In principle" wording don't they? It seems to translate as "Unless the Executive Committee decides otherwise". In other words just like the SFA/SPFL rules then.

 

In practice the wording clearly suggests that moving grounds after the qualifiers would never be an issue, especially to a ground of Murrayfield's standard.

[Winston Ingram]

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

 

Very hard to say but crowds would be fine, I reckon, and certainly not lower than now. Novelty value may even attract a few more. The club would basically be saying to us to bear with them/back them as a new stand was being built, which everyone would surely support (as opposed to a permanent move!).

 

All the noises seem to be that the club are looking to feed off the feelgood/goodwill factor by fast tracking stadium plans, which is absolutely the right thing to do. I don't believe it was as prominent in AB's mind when she took over but a short space of time has again highlighted both potential and the need for the stadium issue to be properly resolved. 

[bigmeg]

If finance was the problem, how would people feel about starting a kickback fund for the stand. Remember we did it when we went into admin. I'm sure we raised a six figure sum. It may prompt the club to move a little quicker. Just a suggestion.

[henry]

 

The last time I heard Budge speak about the stadium she sounded positive about staying and in the same interview spoke about the Everton players praise for the stadium in the recent pre season game. I'm sure she said 22-23k was a good starting point when asked about capacity. I'd go as far to say she will have people working on this as a matter of urgency.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

The last time I heard Budge speak about the stadium she sounded positive about staying and in the same interview spoke about the Everton players praise for the stadium in the recent pre season game. I'm sure she said 22-23k was a good starting point when asked about capacity. I'd go as far to say she will have people working on this as a matter of urgency.

This is where I'm at too. I have a feeling this is definitely happening. Right from the off she spoke positively about overcoming challenges.

 

For the first time in about 20 odd years, I expect us to be playing in a completed Tynecastle.

 

[The People's Chimp]

If finance was the problem, how would people feel about starting a kickback fund for the stand. Remember we did it when we went into admin. I'm sure we raised a six figure sum. It may prompt the club to move a little quicker. Just a suggestion.

Nice idea but we'll need a little more than that, and should be looking beyond lumping more responsibility onto the fans.

[andy-y]

Nice idea but we'll need a little more than that, and should be looking beyond lumping more responsibility onto the fans.

I'd also expect some sort of 500 club deal or a five or ten year season ticket or something along those lines to raise funds

[jamtartan74]

Nice idea but we'll need a little more than that, and should be looking beyond lumping more responsibility onto the fans.

why not though? After all it's us fans that will be sitting in it for decades to come, if people can't afford to or don't feel the need to then that's totally fine. Could put a few more quid to season tickets (?20-?40 maybe) just ideas at the end of the day, some might be up for it some might not.

[JyTees]

Yeh, let's spend an eight figure sum on a new main stand and not have a compliant pitch.

 

Thank Budge we're not fan owned.

[sac]

Immediately after the St J game, AB alluded that all concerned at the club were looking at re-development of the old stand. I'm sure she meant what she said. It sounded like the financial part was the last piece of the jigsaw, imo.

[Pans Jambo]

I would hope and i think she is looking at redevelopment of the main stand as we really need it now in order to grow. I dont think Anne only just wanted to save the club from extinction, but ensure what she hands over to the FOH is a self sustaining, healthy club in a good financial state. It really doesn't make sense for her to do that with a ?14M stand needed from day 1. I think she will put this in place with a funding package that will still allow Hearts to grow without being up to our neck in hugeinterest payments.

[Homme]

Yeh, let's spend an eight figure sum on a new main stand and not have a compliant pitch.

 

Thank Budge we're not fan owned.

Already had this argument with someone on here. It defies belief.

 

[Cruyff Turn]

Yeh, let's spend an eight figure sum on a new main stand and not have a compliant pitch.

 

Thank Budge we're not fan owned.

Yep, no point in spunking ?5-8 million on a new stand if it isn't compliant with UEFA regs.

 

I think overall it would be more cost effective demolishing the ground and building a new stadium on the current site. I'd also future proof it for expansion if the club grows further. 25,000 capacity minimum capacity with expansion capacity of 32,000.

 

I know it's in green and white but aiming similar to This would be tastey http://www.voetbal.com/news/_n1401286_/fc-groningen-komt-met-plan-voor-seizoenkaart/

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Yep, no point in spunking ?5-8 million on a new stand if it isn't compliant with UEFA regs.

 

I think overall it would be more cost effective demolishing the ground and building a new stadium on the current site. I'd also future proof it for expansion if the club grows further. 25,000 capacity minimum capacity with expansion capacity of 32,000.

 

I know it's in green and white but aiming similar to This would be tastey http://www.voetbal.com/news/_n1401286_/fc-groningen-komt-met-plan-voor-seizoenkaart/

Just going by what Budge has said in the press, I can't see us demolishing the ground and building a new stadium. I also can't imagine it would be less expensive. Not sure we'd get permission for such steep and close stands on a new development either?

[Francis Albert]

Already had this argument with someone on here. It defies belief.

 

It's easy to mock arguments and put up a cornette when you simply ignore the substance of the points people make. No-one has said we should not aim to have a "compliant" pitch and other "compliant" facilities. But if the only way you can have a "compliant" stadium is to move from Tynecastle or end up reducing the seating capacity rather than increasing it or only increase it by a thousand or two seats then having a compliant stadium may not be either economically feasible or desirable.

[Homme]

It's easy to mock arguments and put up a cornette when you simply ignore the substance of the points people make. No-one has said we should not aim to have a "compliant" pitch and other "compliant" facilities. But if the only way you can have a "compliant" stadium is to move from Tynecastle or end up reducing the seating capacity rather than increasing it or only increase it by a thousand or two seats then having a compliant stadium may not be either economically feasible or desirable.

I'm pretty sure a compliant stadium is desirable.

 

How do you think UEFA would react knowing we had upgraded our stadium yet deliberately gave compliance the two fingers?

 

The stadium will and must be made compliant.

[topcat]

I'm pretty sure a compliant stadium is desirable.

 

How do you think UEFA would react knowing we had upgraded our stadium yet deliberately gave compliance the two fingers?

 

The stadium will and must be made compliant.

 

A new main stand should allow us to have a 68m wide pitch but it can't let us have a 105m long pitch

 

It wouldn't be giving compliance two fingers it would be showing solid progress towards compliance.

[Francis Albert]

I'm pretty sure a compliant stadium is desirable.

 

How do you think UEFA would react knowing we had upgraded our stadium yet deliberately gave compliance the two fingers?

 

The stadium will and must be made compliant.

No-one has suggested making it fully compliant for European games up to CL and EL semi-finals isn't desirable.

 

But whatever we do it is and will be compliant for all purposes up to European group stages. If you think being compliant for occasions that are (optimistically) likely to happen no more than once in 5 or 10 years is of paramount and over-riding importance then,to quote you, "it defies belief".

 

There is no UEFA requirement that any improvement to a stadium must meet the compliance requirement for European group and later stages of UEFA competitions. Such a requirement or expectation would be patently absurd (even by football authorities standards).

[Homme]

A new main stand should allow us to have a 68m wide pitch but it can't let us have a 105m long pitch

 

It wouldn't be giving compliance two fingers it would be showing solid progress towards compliance.

I'm sure the work will be done to reach compliance. Not just adding a new main stand.

 

Not really sure how you dress it up as progress towards compliance unless you intend to do further work to the stadium and tell UEFA as such. I think this'll be a single project, not many more stadium alterations over the years - whole life costing and all that jazz.

[Homme]

It is and will be compliant for all purposes up to European group stages. If you think being compliant for occasions that are (optimistically) likely to happen no more than once in 5 or 10 years is of paramount and over-riding importance then,to quote you "it defies belief".

There is no UEFA requirement that any improvement to a stadium must meet the compliance requirement for Eoropean group and later stages of UEFA competitions. Such a requirement or expectation would be patently absurd (even by football authorities standards).

UEFA will only tighten up these rules over the coming years. Do you think they will always give out dispensations to teams? Especially those who are regulars in Europe (as we aspire to be?).

[Francis Albert]

UEFA will only tighten up these rules over the coming years. Do you think they will always give out dispensations to teams? Especially those who are regulars in Europe (as we aspire to be?).

It is not a question of giving out dispensations to the current rules but its about possibly changing the current rules. UEFA may change the rules to exclude many existing participants in their competitions. To assume they will and make it a "must have" would IMO not be sensible.

But to be clear you are saying that if the only way to make our ground "compliant" would be to reduce capacity to say 15,000 or to move to a new stadium of similar or smaller capacity (perhaps all we could finance) then that is what we should do?

[Homme]

It is not a question of giving out dispensations to the current rules but its about possibly changing the current rules. UEFA may change the rules to exclude many existing participants in their competitions. To assume they will and make it a "must have" would IMO not be sensible.

But to be clear you are saying that if the only way to make our ground "compliant" would be to reduce capacity to say 15,000 or to move to a new stadium of similar or smaller capacity (perhaps all we could finance) then that is what we should do?

If a new stadium is what it takes then yes. Confident the board and Ann will find a solution to keep us at Tynecastle though.

[Ray Gin]

A new main stand should allow us to have a 68m wide pitch but it can't let us have a 105m long pitch

 

It wouldn't be giving compliance two fingers it would be showing solid progress towards compliance.

 

The only way we're going to get a 68 x 105 pitch is by knocking down the roseburn and extending both the wheatfield and gorgie stands.

[Tony Soprano]

A new main stand should allow us to have a 68m wide pitch but it can't let us have a 105m long pitch

 

It wouldn't be giving compliance two fingers it would be showing solid progress towards compliance.

The problem with increasing the width of the pitch would surely mean having to expand the roseburn and gorgie stands too, so the stands line up with the pitch? Could this be a pretty easily done?

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

The simple fact of the matter is, making stadia compliant costs millions of pounds and outside of a few rich leagues, this is too expensive for a lot of clubs to manage, so dispensation must be granted. It's a bit like a larger scale SPL where clubs missed out on promotion and went in to administration over trying to have a competitive team versus building 10k stadia.

[Homme]

I really think the Roseburn will come down with the main stand. No knowledge of talks etc whatsoever, just a prediction.

[CollyWolly]

If a new stadium is what it takes then yes. Confident the board and Ann will find a solution to keep us at Tynecastle though.

Staying at Tynecastle is the preferred option but the pitch wont be fully compliant. We will get exemptions I imagine but making it compliant, in my opinion is not an affordable option and if pitch size compliance is an essential, in my opinion we'll have to re-locate.

[Allowayjambo1874]

I really think the Roseburn will come down with the main stand. No knowledge of talks etc whatsoever, just a prediction.

I appreciate that there is a feel good factor atm and if we were playing in the epl getting tens of millions per year this would be best solution but we are not.

 

Rough estimates for stand costs are a million per thousand seats so a 12k main stand and say 4k roseburn takes building costs north of ?15m and that's at best.

 

90% of fans are in FOH so there may be a bit of fatigue from fans re dipping hands in pockets and if its just continue witth foh at the current rates it will take ten further years after present five year deal to pay the new stands off in the meantime who's paying for all this?

 

We were in admin less than two years ago spunking endless cash on tynecastle is not going to happen.

[Homme]

I appreciate that there is a feel good factor atm and if we were playing in the epl getting tens of millions per year this would be best solution but we are not.

 

Rough estimates for stand costs are a million per thousand seats so a 12k main stand and say 4k roseburn takes building costs north of ?15m and that's at best.

 

90% of fans are in FOH so there may be a bit of fatigue from fans re dipping hands in pockets and if its just continue witth foh at the current rates it will take ten further years after present five year deal to pay the new stands off in the meantime who's paying for all this?

 

We were in admin less than two years ago spunking endless cash on tynecastle is not going to happen.

I appreciate that. I just get the feeling Ann will pull something out the bag.

 

Again, i go back to whole life costing. The option above may work out more financially viable for Hearts in the long term. Rather than having to constantly upgrade the stadium over the years. Surely that is a very important factor and one i'm sure that won't be lost on the board.

[Nookie Bear]

I have always said I want to stay at Tynie and I trust Ann and the board to explore every avenue to make thishappen.

 

If she completes her work and says we have to move for the sole reason that the pitch is not UEFA compliant then I will be very unhapy. Ripping the club out of Gorgie because of UEFA rules that may change, and when we have a major stadium 100 metres away? No thanks.

[Allowayjambo1874]

I appreciate that. I just get the feeling Ann will pull something out the bag.

Again, i go back to whole life costing. The option above may work out more financially viable for Hearts in the long term. Rather than having to constantly upgrade the stadium over the years. Surely that is a very important factor and one i'm sure that won't be lost on the board.

Agree long term is better option but the here and now financially will determine decision I reckon.

 

I'm actually surprised we are even looking at this so quickly after admin, but where Ann Budge is concerned nothing should surprise me anymore, the woman should be knighted!

[Jammy T]

Hypothetical and playing devil's advocate.

 

Say we were at Murrayfield two years from now for a season. Rangers are back in the SPL.

 

How many fans would Celtic, and Rangers bring for each game against us there? And should we basically let them have as many tickets as they want outside of the home sections?

 

My view is that it could be expected that Celtic and Rangers could bring up to 10,000 each, particularly if we continue to do well and Rangers and Celtic are challenging at the top. If we get to the split and they are both (and/or we are also) in the hunt for the title. You could see 15,000 to 20,000 of them wanting to come accross....

 

My view is also that for one season only we should let that happen. Milking them at say ?30 a ticket would pocket us between ?1.25m and ?1.5m over the season and possibly pay for 10% of the new stand.....

 

Thoughts?

[Francis Albert]

Nothing wrong in principle, especially since we are told 10,000 in Murrayfield couldn't possibly create any atmosphere in the "soulless barn"!

I have my doubts we'd get as many as 10,000 paying ?30 rather than watching it at home or in the pub. Their away following (or indeed their home following for non-ST games) is not what it was. Maybe if we were credible league challengers.

[Allowayjambo1874]

In answer to your question jammyt I think there is bit of a myth regards the hoardes of arse cheek fans desperate for tickets that can't buy one.

 

Whilst we are a much bigger draw, gretna played both at fir park pretty much offering as many tickets as both clubs wanted. Last matches home attendances were 6k v sevco and 3.5k v celtic.

 

Reckon if we gave unlimited tickets for murrayfield you would get 6-7k tops from them.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

I would not want to be outnumbered by any of our rivals at home. Personally. I doubt there would be enough cash coming in from such a venture to make it more desirable than the lost 'home advantage' anyway.

[kingantti1874]

I appreciate that there is a feel good factor atm and if we were playing in the epl getting tens of millions per year this would be best solution but we are not.

 

Rough estimates for stand costs are a million per thousand seats so a 12k main stand and say 4k roseburn takes building costs north of ?15m and that's at best.

 

90% of fans are in FOH so there may be a bit of fatigue from fans re dipping hands in pockets and if its just continue witth foh at the current rates it will take ten further years after present five year deal to pay the new stands off in the meantime who's paying for all this?

 

We were in admin less than two years ago spunking endless cash on tynecastle is not going to happen.

I'm not sure what will be build or not or how much it will cost but safe to assume hearts will be looking to develop assets to sell for 7 figure fees and that will be paying for a chunk of it

[OTT]

I would not want to be outnumbered by any of our rivals at home. Personally. I doubt there would be enough cash coming in from such a venture to make it more desirable than the lost 'home advantage' anyway.

 

Yeah that would be pulling a St Johnstone

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Yeah that would be pulling a St Johnstone/Kilmarnock/Motherwell/Livingston

[OTT]

 

Ross County, Hamilton, St Mirren.....

 

Gets a bit scary at this point

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Ross County, Hamilton, St Mirren.....

 

Gets a bit scary at this point

It does indeed, and I have no desire to see our name added to that list. The extra revenue would not be worth the loss of home advantage, imo.

[OTT]

It does indeed, and I have no desire to see our name added to that list. The extra revenue would not be worth the loss of home advantage, imo.

Have to agree, the absolute carnage after would also make it pretty much a non starter.

 

Their fans are ******* ferel.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Have to agree, the absolute carnage after would also make it pretty much a non starter.

 

Their fans are ******* ferel.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'll get no arguments from me there. It's bad enough with 3.5k of the scumbags scuttling around, 6k or whatever?

[Homme]

You'll get no arguments from me there. It's bad enough with 3.5k of the scumbags scuttling around, 6k or whatever?

Half of that this season, thanks to Ann - and ourselves of course

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Half of that this season, thanks to Ann - and ourselves of course

Yep, and what a difference it made. The thought of never having to suffer such large numbers of them again in West Edinburgh Is just delightful. That Celtic v Legia Warsaw match was hideous, vermin crawling all over the place... It was like that video of the Australian farm overrun with mice, where the farmer picks up the corrugated iron and they all scamper around in all directions caked in their own filth.

 

 

I get what people are saying regarding milking the pricks, but seriously... It's a big fat NAW from me.

 

[FarmerTweedy]

I appreciate that there is a feel good factor atm and if we were playing in the epl getting tens of millions per year this would be best solution but we are not.

Rough estimates for stand costs are a million per thousand seats so a 12k main stand and say 4k roseburn takes building costs north of ?15m and that's at best.

90% of fans are in FOH so there may be a bit of fatigue from fans re dipping hands in pockets and if its just continue witth foh at the current rates it will take ten further years after present five year deal to pay the new stands off in the meantime who's paying for all this?

We were in admin less than two years ago spunking endless cash on tynecastle is not going to happen.

We have more than 9,000 fans.

[Mysterion]

I really think the Roseburn will come down with the main stand. No knowledge of talks etc whatsoever, just a prediction.

Said it before, will say it again - a wrap around option (whether L shaped or curved around) encompassing the footprint of the main stand and Roseburn will facilitate the UEFA requirements and capacity needed.