Jump to content
hoody_06

Serious Question

what would you rather have  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. what would you rather have

    • New Stand
    • Team Challenging for Europe/SPL Title


Recommended Posts

hoody_06

i was having a debate/argument in the car coming home last night

 

what would you rather have

 

 

a team challenging for uefa/champions league place or a brand new stand??

 

simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dunk-Section G

A team winning the SPL etc would mean we could have our new stand, as we would have more cash via winning competitions, selling merchandise, filling Tynie etc.

 

The other way around is a lot more risky and expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Susie-Jambo-66
i was having a debate/argument in the car coming home last night

 

what would you rather have

 

 

a team challenging for uefa/champions league place or a brand new stand??

 

simple

 

It would have to be the team challenging for Uefa / Champions League as if we dont pull the finger out there will be nobody to fill the new stand so why build it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigwull22

I think they both go hand in hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The xx

I think the question is a no-brainer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tynie b
I think they both go hand in hand

 

Why??

Seriously, is it not a bit like putting the Cart before the Horse?

 

WE Have to get things sorted on the pitch first or the 23,000 seater Stadium is going to be bloody empty!

 

Is that TOO Simple...:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horse
i was having a debate/argument in the car coming home last night

 

what would you rather have

 

 

a team challenging for uefa/champions league place or a brand new stand??

 

simple

 

you will not get either under Romanov...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble

Bit of a chicken and the egg question tbh ! We need the team to be challenging to fill a new 23000 stand but we need the new 23000 stand to pay for the team to challenge !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToadKiller Dog

Why cant we have both ?.

Its the quality of the team and long term lack of proper management that stops us at the moment challenging for europe.

The Stand is seperate and somthing that is long over due,the main stand does not have many years left in it.

To have any real hope of even thinking about regular challenges for CL qualification the clubs structures need greatly enhanced and i think so far that the one part those in charge are doing ok at.

It comes down to our scope of ambitions tynie needs developed or we need to move and build new if we have ambitions to close the gap longer term with the uglies.

Hearts will always over the longer term be likely more seasons than not to challenge for a ueffa cup place.

So over all i would say the long term redevelopment is of more importance tho the current mess off a 1st team ****es me off no end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad_Knows_Best

Season 2005-2006 shows what happens when you challenge..........bums on seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigwull22
Why??

Seriously, is it not a bit like putting the Cart before the Horse?

 

WE Have to get things sorted on the pitch first or the 23,000 seater Stadium is going to be bloody empty!

 

Is that TOO Simple...:confused:

 

you need the revenue to sustain that challenge max gate of 17000 is not enough, and probably more important in the realms of finance an increase in hospitality with the sponsorship etc that follows, is that simple enough, anyway the auld stand wont get a licence for much longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julio
you will not get either under Romanov...

 

Very true Horse. I went for European football. My god Basel seems a distant memory. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
super_vlad

Its not just the new stand, its knowing that tynecastle will be standing for the the next 20 years !

 

Some people are quick to forget that not so long ago we were about to destroy tynecastle ! And we were not challeging for any prizes eithier !

 

Get a grip people, yes we have being poor, but at east we are dealing with football problems rather than worried about if hearts will stay alive fpr the next year or not !:ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliffundo

Having a 23.000 seater stadium is not going to help us aim for European Glory....spl glory ... well not in real terms... we are still going to have less than half the Capacity of the Old Firm... the income generated has already been ear marked to clear of the debt.... which was roughly quoted by Pedro Lopez as taking between 10-15 years... so...let's just get on with making progress on the field and in the background workout how we make Tyncastle UEFA compliant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
Why??

Seriously, is it not a bit like putting the Cart before the Horse?

 

WE Have to get things sorted on the pitch first or the 23,000 seater Stadium is going to be bloody empty!

 

Is that TOO Simple...:confused:

 

Part of me thinks that the new stand will come before better players/organisation on the pitch.

 

Once the new stand is finished, or nearly finished, I suspect the playing side of things will be much more attractive simply to sell ST's for the new stand. In the meantime the season is over. VR isn't going to fork out loads for nothing i.e. Europe or SC both gone. LC? LOL...

 

New manager in the summer, perhaps. Or Summer 09.

 

Why? The revenue streams associated with the new stand will allow further investment. At the moment I think VR isn't prepared to throw good money after bad. Not to just keep us quiet anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gadgey55

I am quite comfy in that auld shack thanks. No sae comfy on the een at the mo though. Imagine ?51million on the playing side / management!

 

poke yer shiny stand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Drago

if we're not challenging for at least europe, we wont fill Tynie as it is, let alone a larger capacity Tynie. If we dont fill the new capacity, the debt will continue to rise and rise. Not a good situation at all.

 

If the new stand is built, but the team is still gash and its not selling out, we'll be in an even worse situation than before imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigwull22
if we're not challenging for at least europe, we wont fill Tynie as it is, let alone a larger capacity Tynie. If we dont fill the new capacity, the debt will continue to rise and rise. Not a good situation at all.

 

If the new stand is built, but the team is still gash and its not selling out, we'll be in an even worse situation than before imo.

 

"if you build it they will come"

if not its one half hearted challenge every 8-10 years that will damn near break us, as after 97/98 and 05/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swimmer

for me it has to be the stand.

 

The stand will be there for future teams to compete for the SPL / Europe. Aiming for Europe and SPL is a short term vision IMO. Yes it would be awesome but not a long term strategy for success.

 

Just look at the succesful teams around! None of them have small crumbling stadiums.

 

How sustainable is the 2005 team without having the financial ability to support the funds required to carry it off?

 

Ok, we will need a succesful team to fill the stadium and right now this is something that we do not have. Our attendances are still relatively strong compared to the performances / results. A new stand will entice more people to the games, the added financial support of more corporate sponsors boxes, pre-match bars and the like is a much better means to support the type of investment required in playing staff to sustain a challenge for the SPL and make Europe regularly.

 

I liken it to the sport I am involved in. My swimmers work really hard all year round yet their performances in a major meet are not decided upon what they do this week, more the 12 months of work before that. The real medal winners in the 2012 Olympics have been targetting this for the past 18 months, some 6 years before they have one chance of getting it right.

 

Success is not short term. It has to come from a long term plan. If you fail to plan then you are planinng to fail. If the stand is not in place this rings true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
footieman

Maybe its just me but is this not another media spun nonsense that everybody seems to be falling for!! I was off the believe that the people behind the scenes at Tynie have been working on the plans for the new stand for the last couple of years, ie back when things were going well on the park. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sked21

If you have a team challenging for the SPL then after a while you can get the new stand especially if you are playing in the champions league each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherlock

What happens when we've a team challenging for uefa/champions league place and the old stand doesn't get it's safety certificate.

 

How good would the atmosphere be at Tynie on Euro night with only three stands?

 

Edit: I forget we'd probably be playing Euro games at rockin' muddyfield, after giving some of the revenue to the SRU for the privilage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
footieman
i was having a debate/argument in the car coming home last night

 

what would you rather have

 

 

a team challenging for uefa/champions league place or a brand new stand??

 

simple

 

Why is it an either or? Why can't we have both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan Drago
for me it has to be the stand.

 

The stand will be there for future teams to compete for the SPL / Europe. Aiming for Europe and SPL is a short term vision IMO. Yes it would be awesome but not a long term strategy for success.

 

Just look at the succesful teams around! None of them have small crumbling stadiums.

 

How sustainable is the 2005 team without having the financial ability to support the funds required to carry it off?

 

Ok, we will need a succesful team to fill the stadium and right now this is something that we do not have. Our attendances are still relatively strong compared to the performances / results. A new stand will entice more people to the games, the added financial support of more corporate sponsors boxes, pre-match bars and the like is a much better means to support the type of investment required in playing staff to sustain a challenge for the SPL and make Europe regularly.

 

I liken it to the sport I am involved in. My swimmers work really hard all year round yet their performances in a major meet are not decided upon what they do this week, more the 12 months of work before that. The real medal winners in the 2012 Olympics have been targetting this for the past 18 months, some 6 years before they have one chance of getting it right.

 

Success is not short term. It has to come from a long term plan. If you fail to plan then you are planinng to fail. If the stand is not in place this rings true.

 

 

Im sure there are plenty of lower division English teams who have lovely stadiums.

 

Before VR, the club was losing money at a horrendous rate. It still is. Theres no guarantee or evidence that the new stand will rectify this. If it doesnt get filled every week, then there's no chance it will imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfstar

What people forget is that ?51mill is not for a new stand, it is also hotel/gym/flats ect.

 

with this we will own an asset worth more than ?51mill, it balances itself off, the stand will be there for life, with the stadium. player investment ensures no level of sucsess and even if it did it may be short lived. Get the foundations in place and then the playing side will take care of itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swimmer
Im sure there are plenty of lower division English teams who have lovely stadiums.

 

Before VR, the club was losing money at a horrendous rate. It still is. Theres no guarantee or evidence that the new stand will rectify this. If it doesnt get filled every week, then there's no chance it will imo.

 

My point was not about how nice the stadium was but more about the revenue it can bring. Without the etra revenue that the new stand can bring there is no way we can afford to bring in the type of players needed to sustain a challenge.

 

You are correct, we are losing money at a horrendous rate. Bringing in players that demand bigger wages in order to win the SPL will haemorrage the money even quicker unless the support structure is there. Without the new stand that simply is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheepie
with this we will own an asset worth more than ?51mill

 

 

Serious questions,

 

Will Hearts own the entire asset? When I say own, I mean truely own, ie title deeds in the name of HMFC.

 

Will the asset actually be worth more than the investment? Stadiums tend to be of little value - the real money being in the land it sits on.

Spending x million on construction of a stadium on a piece of ground worth y will only really recoup y million on re-sale, a loss of x million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
H2

Long term success can mean short term pain. We are certainly feeling pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson
My god Basel seems a distant memory. :mad:
I bet you were moaning your tits off that we only won 1 nil instead of 2 nil:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redm
Very true Horse. I went for European football. My god Basel seems a distant memory. :mad:

 

Are you and Horse the same person or have you just formed your own wee mutual appreciation society?

 

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sked21
for me it has to be the stand.

 

The stand will be there for future teams to compete for the SPL / Europe. Aiming for Europe and SPL is a short term vision IMO. Yes it would be awesome but not a long term strategy for success.

 

Just look at the succesful teams around! None of them have small crumbling stadiums.

 

How sustainable is the 2005 team without having the financial ability to support the funds required to carry it off?

 

Ok, we will need a succesful team to fill the stadium and right now this is something that we do not have. Our attendances are still relatively strong compared to the performances / results. A new stand will entice more people to the games, the added financial support of more corporate sponsors boxes, pre-match bars and the like is a much better means to support the type of investment required in playing staff to sustain a challenge for the SPL and make Europe regularly.

 

I liken it to the sport I am involved in. My swimmers work really hard all year round yet their performances in a major meet are not decided upon what they do this week, more the 12 months of work before that. The real medal winners in the 2012 Olympics have been targetting this for the past 18 months, some 6 years before they have one chance of getting it right.

 

Success is not short term. It has to come from a long term plan. If you fail to plan then you are planinng to fail. If the stand is not in place this rings true.

 

:laugh:

 

On a serious note I agree with what you have said but in my opinion it is six and two threes.

 

You build a stand and hope that it gives us the financial gain to allow us to get better players in. Also the stand will be there for many many years to come.

 

But then on the otherhand. If you have a qsuccessful team, fans are going to come and watch in their numbers. We would then just need to hop we make the champions league and reap the financial benefits of that to lets us build a new stand and hopefully get the debt done.

 

The reason I would go for the latter option is that you are going to be watching a good team and won't be coming away most weeks feeling frustrated and depressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson
Are you and Horse the same person or have you just formed your own wee mutual appreciation society?

 

:biggrin:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamboRobbo

The stand is the most important thing in the long term.

 

The team can be fixed at any point.

 

However, I don't see why it has to be a choice. I see no reason why building a new stand forces us to employ incompetents to run the football side of the club.

 

So I'd like both please. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swimmer
:laugh:

 

On a serious note I agree with what you have said but in my opinion it is six and two threes.

 

You build a stand and hope that it gives us the financial gain to allow us to get better players in. Also the stand will be there for many many years to come.

 

But then on the otherhand. If you have a qsuccessful team, fans are going to come and watch in their numbers. We would then just need to hop we make the champions league and reap the financial benefits of that to lets us build a new stand and hopefully get the debt done.

 

The reason I would go for the latter option is that you are going to be watching a good team and won't be coming away most weeks feeling frustrated and depressed.

 

I am conused why you highlighted the 'my swimmers' bit? I am a swim coach with some very succesful swimmers! Hence the user name (Ok it is a little misleading as I used to be a swimmer and use this username for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sked21
I am conused why you highlighted the 'my swimmers' bit? I am a swim coach with some very succesful swimmers! Hence the user name (Ok it is a little misleading as I used to be a swimmer and use this username for many years.

 

Yeah I know. Nothing wrong with you're username mate. It is me just being an immature tit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haggis58
you need the revenue to sustain that challenge max gate of 17000 is not enough, and probably more important in the realms of finance an increase in hospitality with the sponsorship etc that follows, is that simple enough, anyway the auld stand wont get a licence for much longer

 

I also think we need a new stand as that secures the future for the club for many years to come. Next year there will be a drop of season ticket sales, but with the likelihood that Tynecastle will have 3 sides next year, the stands will be full

 

All those fans who say that we won't be able to fill a new stand because we don't have a decent side to watch are correct, that is why we will have a better quality team when it is completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swimmer
Yeah I know. Nothing wrong with you're username mate. It is me just being an immature tit.

 

No worries ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markletissier

its a chicken or egg question but i think it'd be better to sort the team first of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumpship
A team winning the SPL etc would mean we could have our new stand, as we would have more cash via winning competitions, selling merchandise, filling Tynie etc.

 

The other way around is a lot more risky and expensive.

Voted new stand before i read this post .

 

Wish i'd voted winning team.

:balmoral:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interista
The stand is the most important thing in the long term.

 

The team can be fixed at any point.

 

However, I don't see why it has to be a choice. I see no reason why building a new stand forces us to employ incompetents to run the football side of the club.

 

So I'd like both please. :)

 

This is the simple truth. With a playing side budget like ours, there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be in, at least, a comfortable third place.

 

Mismanagement on the playing side has been our undoing to date, to state the obvious.

 

The new stand is a clear indication of intent and must be considered a priority for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson
1 nil
You didn't bite Julio;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfstar
Serious questions,

 

Will Hearts own the entire asset? When I say own, I mean truely own, ie title deeds in the name of HMFC.

 

Will the asset actually be worth more than the investment? Stadiums tend to be of little value - the real money being in the land it sits on.

Spending x million on construction of a stadium on a piece of ground worth y will only really recoup y million on re-sale, a loss of x million.

 

I agree tynecastle isnt worth ?15-20mill it is the land that is worth that amount. But a hotel/resturant/gym/flats/office complex must surley be worth alot more when it is completed and as a running business that what it costs to build?

 

refering to title deeds ect, unfortunutly I would doubt HMFC will own this. I beleive Ubig/ukio/vlad will own the deeds ect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julio
I bet you were moaning your tits off that we only won 1 nil instead of 2 nil:rolleyes:

 

I know I was hammered JB but the score was 2-1. Shyness and Robbie doing the business. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julio
Are you and Horse the same person or have you just formed your own wee mutual appreciation society?

 

:biggrin:

 

Heading through with Horse and a few others to next weeks semi final. The bevvy wins ahead of the football. :527:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheepie
I agree tynecastle isnt worth ?15-20mill it is the land that is worth that amount. But a hotel/resturant/gym/flats/office complex must surley be worth alot more when it is completed and as a running business that what it costs to build?

 

Guess it depends on whether it's turning a profit or not

 

refering to title deeds ect, unfortunutly I would doubt HMFC will own this. I beleive Ubig/ukio/vlad will own the deeds ect

 

This is the crux of the matter - it's unlikley, imo, HMFC will see the benefit of all the add ons since it would appear likely that the profit from non-football business and the notional asset value will be Vlads. Yet, the cost to build is getting added to Hearts debt. All the risk HMFC's. All the benefits Vlads.

 

Maybe the question should Stadium or 'sustainable' team challenging.

 

The past 15-20 years has showed speculate to accumulate to be an extremely risky football strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson
I know I was hammered JB but the score was 2-1. Shyness and Robbie doing the business. :)
:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hearts @ heart
i was having a debate/argument in the car coming home last night

 

what would you rather have

 

 

a team challenging for uefa/champions league place or a brand new stand??

 

simple

 

It is debatable whether we would get a health and safety license for the old stand when it comes up for renewal. Extensive work was done the last time it was required.

So for arguments sake we have to play at Tynie in front of 13k of which some portion would be away fans for a considerable time.

Our income from hospitality would be less.

More continual expense for changing facilities and no doubt some work would still need to be done to stop the degeneration of the old stand. with the potential of debries being a danger.

 

We would have to use Muddy field if it was champions league and not a redevelop tynie.

All this is reducing income when salaries increase and more expense at Muddayfield.

 

I think whether folks like it or not we need a new stand.

We also need the team seen to.

It has been neglected by proxy.

 

There are cheap fixes out there for the team.

We could if wanted badly had a new appointment prior to the Motherwell game as other clubs seem to move fast when needs must.

Instead we are in danger of going past the Rankers game out of both cups and the possibility of being 8 points of the bottom with Gretna having a game in hand.

 

That is where the problem lies not in the necessity of a new stand.

The more each day passes I find myself thinking alongside all the guys & gals that thought Vlad is delaying things.

Who knows we might win our next two games, Then again how many games have we won this season to date.

 

The problem we have, is just like the old stand and it is neglect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander Harris

you cannot seperate the two. We have only managed the odd season where we have challanged for the SPL title and even then we have faded. sustained long term challenge, both in the cup competition and the SPL, requires the correct infrastructure to be in place. A new main stand is an essential part of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truejambo81

New stand is not so much of a priority in my eyes. Getting the team back up the league is the main concern. No point having a great stadium if your in division 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest S.U.S.S.
Season 2005-2006 shows what happens when you challenge..........bums on seats.

 

How do you account for the numbers that still turn up every week while we are at the bottom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...