TYNECASTLE STADIUM UPGRADE POTENTIAL - UEFA category 4 granted ( updated/merged )

[davemclaren]

18 minutes ago, droid said:

A random thought with all this talk of moving. Aren’t the 3 older stands designed to be movable? 

Sadly the wheels rusted up a few years ago as Budge wouldn't pay for the special oil required. 🤷

[gordon simpson]

On 19/02/2026 at 08:55, hmfc_liam06 said:

I honestly think the only viable option is to move. 

[kila]

39 minutes ago, droid said:

A random thought with all this talk of moving. Aren’t the 3 older stands designed to be movable? 

 

 

[Mark_Mywords]

50 minutes ago, droid said:

A random thought with all this talk of moving. Aren’t the 3 older stands designed to be movable? 

 

Getting from Wheatfield Street onto Gorgie Road might be a bit tight for the Wheatfield Stand to turn. 

[Chaps]

3 other stands could do with a makeover.

 

Looking a bit drab and dreary.

[gordon simpson]

6 minutes ago, Chaps said:

3 other stands could do with a makeover.

 

Looking a bit drab and dreary.

a more realistic post 

[Ribble]

1 hour ago, droid said:

A random thought with all this talk of moving. Aren’t the 3 older stands designed to be movable? 

 

They were designed that way originally so they could be moved to Millerhill etc, no idea if it would still be feasible 30 years later (as in would 30 year old concrete/steel be able to handle the stress of being moved)

[soonbe110]

On 19/02/2026 at 11:05, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I don't know if this sounds a bit cliche/pretentious but I think part of the responsibility of the board is not to hamstring future generations. 

 

There is a not unreasonable argument that Wallace Mercer was correct in seeking a new site back in the 90s (albeit the site chosen wasn't great), and by redeveloping Tynecastle instead under Robinson, we've then seen building costs climb massively, and land in good areas become scarcer, our remaining land around Tynecastle, like the old School be blocked from demo as a listed building, and then turned into student flats that nobody wanted, and NBD expand their ethanol storage which then has a knock on effect for what we can/cannot do.  

 

Obviously the flip side to that is that you could quite reasonably argue that if we took on the costs of funding the stadium ourselves, the board would be hamstringing future generations with a massive virtually unending debt. Which obviously isn't something I would support. 

 

I don't "want" to leave Tynecastle, but also I do think the clubs long term future needs to be seriously looked at quite pragmatically, and we're facing a litany of issues coupled with a particularly unhelpful council if we do choose to try and expand Tynecastle. If we even got planning permission to go ahead, how many hoops are the council going to demand we jump through for what may end up being a fairly negligible increase to capacity ?

So, if the club isn’t going to fund a new stadium how and who do you envisage will fund it?  I doubt the Arsenal/Spurs funding models would be possible at our size of business given a new build would prob be in region of £60-70m nett of the sale of Tynie, at least. 

[spirt of 98]

One upgrade I want to see is the Derek McInnes statue on the plaza holding the league winners trophy. May be a Tony Bloom and Ann Budge either side. 

[johnking123]

We don't want the current stands. We want bigger!! 

[Konrad von Carstein]

On 15/02/2026 at 13:16, IanF86 said:

@grok fill in the corners

Is the roof supported by sky-hooks? 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, soonbe110 said:

So, if the club isn’t going to fund a new stadium how and who do you envisage will fund it?  I doubt the Arsenal/Spurs funding models would be possible at our size of business given a new build would prob be in region of £60-70m nett of the sale of Tynie, at least. 

 

A very fair question - I would assume a combination of prize money, transfer fees and investment from the board/FOH plus the money for the site Tyncastle is currently on (should we move) and probably some form of loan. We did the 500 club to help fund construction back in the 90s didn't we? I'm sure fans would be receptive to something similar, which alone won't make a dent but hopefully in conjunction with everything else could help get us a decent chunk of the way there. 

 

You're spot on though, the how of how we fund it is a big question, we have no right to expect Tony Bloom or James Anderson to put their hands in their pockets. 

[Serge Pizzorno]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0rj7jd1jdro

 

Here is why we should not leave Tynecastle, and certainly NEVER modify our pitch dimensions.

[Red Card Ref]

What is a realistic number of supporters we could expect every week at Tynie?

 

Would a stadium of 23k look too empty? I'd hate to have a stadium that is too big for us, leaving big empty gaps. Had enough of that in Tynie over the years!

 

I'd be confident we could fill 20k, maybe even 21k. But the cost to get an extra few thousand seats would be poor value I'd guess 🤷🏻 

[Ray Gin]

36 minutes ago, Red Card Ref said:

What is a realistic number of supporters we could expect every week at Tynie?

 

Would a stadium of 23k look too empty? I'd hate to have a stadium that is too big for us, leaving big empty gaps. Had enough of that in Tynie over the years!

 

I'd be confident we could fill 20k, maybe even 21k. But the cost to get an extra few thousand seats would be poor value I'd guess 🤷🏻 

 

24k easy. 30-35k for big games.

[soonbe110]

7 hours ago, OTT said:

 

A very fair question - I would assume a combination of prize money, transfer fees and investment from the board/FOH plus the money for the site Tyncastle is currently on (should we move) and probably some form of loan. We did the 500 club to help fund construction back in the 90s didn't we? I'm sure fans would be receptive to something similar, which alone won't make a dent but hopefully in conjunction with everything else could help get us a decent chunk of the way there. 

 

You're spot on though, the how of how we fund it is a big question, we have no right to expect Tony Bloom or James Anderson to put their hands in their pockets. 

Yes, easy to see how the Board have come to the conclusion that there’s no stadium development in the current plans.  Unless we found someone willing to do what Bloom did with Brighton ie pretty much fund a new stadium and recoup the investment over time, it’s pretty certain we can’t fund a new stadium.  Bloom is getting his money back because Brighton are doing well having survived several seasons in the richest league in the world.   Different story in Scotland with our tv deals and pricing structures.  
The scale of the challenge is such that if a stadium cost was £75m nett of what we get for Tynie the annual interest payments would pretty much swallow our gate receipts.  The capital repayments would swallow the FoH money.   Pretty huge hits required to our operating cost structures to allow for that.  

Think we have what we have for the next few years and need to maximise income from that and see where it takes us.    

[Watt-Zeefuik]

10 hours ago, droid said:

A random thought with all this talk of moving. Aren’t the 3 older stands designed to be movable? 

 

Step 1: Disassemble but preserve the Wheatfield risers

Step 2: Build a 10k, shallower raked lower stand with standing terraces along the front

Step 3: Mount the current risers on a steel frame as the upper tier above the new lower tier.

 

 

2 hours ago, Red Card Ref said:

What is a realistic number of supporters we could expect every week at Tynie?

 

Would a stadium of 23k look too empty? I'd hate to have a stadium that is too big for us, leaving big empty gaps. Had enough of that in Tynie over the years!

 

I'd be confident we could fill 20k, maybe even 21k. But the cost to get an extra few thousand seats would be poor value I'd guess 🤷🏻 

 

Nothing wrong with a few empty seats for midweek games, if it's just some scattered among the supporters and a few patches in the upper corners of the stands. We should build what we can fill 10-12 matches/season.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/motherwell

 

Motherwell are looking to fill in the corners, if they can

 

[Jingle Bells]

On 24/02/2026 at 18:29, Red Card Ref said:

What is a realistic number of supporters we could expect every week at Tynie?

 

Would a stadium of 23k look too empty? I'd hate to have a stadium that is too big for us, leaving big empty gaps. Had enough of that in Tynie over the years!

 

I'd be confident we could fill 20k, maybe even 21k. But the cost to get an extra few thousand seats would be poor value I'd guess 🤷🏻 

 

You need some spare space to grow your support, Free Tickets to schools etc.

Abhorrent, but we are losing out on the money from away fans atm.

[CMc]

On 18/02/2026 at 21:03, johnking123 said:

Its money,  pure and simple. Paying NBD what they want and moving the tanks full of ethanol is the start of it all.

If them being full is an issue, I’m sure we as fans could help with this. 
 

Gorgie’s going to run out of booze if we successfully win the league. Just run a hose pipe down Macleod street and charge a tenner a shot. 
 

Tanks drained and relocation money generated in minutes 

[Libertarian]

On 24/02/2026 at 12:33, OTT said:

 

A very fair question - I would assume a combination of prize money, transfer fees and investment from the board/FOH plus the money for the site Tyncastle is currently on (should we move) and probably some form of loan. We did the 500 club to help fund construction back in the 90s didn't we? I'm sure fans would be receptive to something similar, which alone won't make a dent but hopefully in conjunction with everything else could help get us a decent chunk of the way there. 

 

You're spot on though, the how of how we fund it is a big question, we have no right to expect Tony Bloom or James Anderson to put their hands in their pockets. 

I've mentioned this before.  Jamie Bryant who was the brains behind the Foundation had the office next to mine. He wanted to demolish the 4 stands at Tynecastle and switch the pitch from its current north/south alignment to east/West. Then build the stadium. He had it all worked out that there would have been enough room for a 40,000 capacity stadium fully funded through donations from the FOH. He had all these plans in folders in his office. 

[cb1]

1 hour ago, Libertarian said:

I've mentioned this before.  Jamie Bryant who was the brains behind the Foundation had the office next to mine. He wanted to demolish the 4 stands at Tynecastle and switch the pitch from its current north/south alignment to east/West. Then build the stadium. He had it all worked out that there would have been enough room for a 40,000 capacity stadium fully funded through donations from the FOH. He had all these plans in folders in his office. 

Even with a Stamford Bridge-shaped stadium, we'd likely still run into the current height restrictions and blocking light into the back of the Gorgie Road flats.

 

Still think the best option for us long term would be to move into the distillery land if/when it becomes available. Can build around current Tynie (similar to what Spurs did), gives us more space, keeps us in Gorgie. Ticks all the boxes. Financially viable after we complete our 10 in a row in 2036.

[FarmerTweedy]

On 24/02/2026 at 15:58, Serge Pizzorno said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0rj7jd1jdro

 

Here is why we should not leave Tynecastle, and certainly NEVER modify our pitch dimensions.

I totally disagree.  Re the pitch dimensions, I think the small Tynecastle pitch actually hurts us.  IMO, it makes it easier for smaller teams coming to Tynecastle, looking to keep things tight and frustrate us, to do just that.  They can keep a compact shape and stop us getting through them more easily than they'd be able to if we had a full size pitch.  I think it also makes things more difficult for us when we go to Glasgow and either play away against an arsecheek or play cup semis or finals at Hampdump.  I think it adds more difficulty to those games for us, as we have to adjust to the wider spaces of those pitches.  In a footballing sense, I really do think we'd benefit overall from having a bigger home pitch, which we simply can't do in our current stadium. 

 

As far as the rest of the article is concerned, yes there would probably be a period of everyone getting used to a new stadium, and results might suffer in the short term until we do, but we'd all get used to it eventually and in the longer term it'd be fine.  Looking at the teams talked about in the article, Boro, Derby and Southampton were all outperforming their normal levels when they moved, and would probably have had similar dropoffs even if they'd stayed at their old grounds, quite possibly worse!  Spurs are just a badly run club that's made bad managerial appointments and poor signings over the last few years, and the new ground hasn't caused that.  Man City haven't exactly struggled much in their new home.  And Everton's sample size of games is so small that their win on Tuesday night has already brought their ppg up to about the same as last season's at Goodison.  

 

The only real cautionary tale from that article is West Ham, and it's less about moving and more about what you move to.  Their ground is an utterly awful design for football, with terrible views and poor atmosphere due to the stands being way too far from the pitch and to shallowly banked, which isn't really surprising as it was designed and built solely with athletics and specifically the 2012 Olympics in mind, and no real (remotely viable) plan for it after that. They should probably never have moved to that stadium in that form, although I don't know enough about potential other options they may or may not have had, or what state the Boleyn Ground was in and how pressing a need they actually had to move.  All it really tells us though, is that if we were to leave Tynecastle in the future, we must make sure the new home we move to is well designed and suited to being a football stadium, and something that Hearts fans will enjoy being in, even if it doesn't have the sentimental ties (yet) that Tynecastle does.  That means stands as close to the pitch as possible, and as tall and steeply banked as is reasonably possible and practical within both building regulations and UEFA competition regulations.  It also means, ideally, not being too big either to begin with, but with scope for further expansion if and when we need it.  All of which rules out Murrayfield! 

[OTT]

16 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

I totally disagree.  Re the pitch dimensions, I think the small Tynecastle pitch actually hurts us.  IMO, it makes it easier for smaller teams coming to Tynecastle, looking to keep things tight and frustrate us, to do just that.  They can keep a compact shape and stop us getting through them more easily than they'd be able to if we had a full size pitch.  I think it also makes things more difficult for us when we go to Glasgow and either play away against an arsecheek or play cup semis or finals at Hampdump.  I think it adds more difficulty to those games for us, as we have to adjust to the wider spaces of those pitches.  In a footballing sense, I really do think we'd benefit overall from having a bigger home pitch, which we simply can't do in our current stadium. 

 

As far as the rest of the article is concerned, yes there would probably be a period of everyone getting used to a new stadium, and results might suffer in the short term until we do, but we'd all get used to it eventually and in the longer term it'd be fine.  Looking at the teams talked about in the article, Boro, Derby and Southampton were all outperforming their normal levels when they moved, and would probably have had similar dropoffs even if they'd stayed at their old grounds, quite possibly worse!  Spurs are just a badly run club that's made bad managerial appointments and poor signings over the last few years, and the new ground hasn't caused that.  Man City haven't exactly struggled much in their new home.  And Everton's sample size of games is so small that their win on Tuesday night has already brought their ppg up to about the same as last season's at Goodison.  

 

The only real cautionary tale from that article is West Ham, and it's less about moving and more about what you move to.  Their ground is an utterly awful design for football, with terrible views and poor atmosphere due to the stands being way too far from the pitch and to shallowly banked, which isn't really surprising as it was designed and built solely with athletics and specifically the 2012 Olympics in mind, and no real (remotely viable) plan for it after that. They should probably never have moved to that stadium in that form, although I don't know enough about potential other options they may or may not have had, or what state the Boleyn Ground was in and how pressing a need they actually had to move.  All it really tells us though, is that if we were to leave Tynecastle in the future, we must make sure the new home we move to is well designed and suited to being a football stadium, and something that Hearts fans will enjoy being in, even if it doesn't have the sentimental ties (yet) that Tynecastle does.  That means stands as close to the pitch as possible, and as tall and steeply banked as is reasonably possible and practical within both building regulations and UEFA competition regulations.  It also means, ideally, not being too big either to begin with, but with scope for further expansion if and when we need it.  All of which rules out Murrayfield! 

 

Spot on I think!

 

The West Ham story I think is a worst case doomsday type scenario, and I think would only be replicated by us if we moved into Murrayfield permanently. Neither the City of London Stadium or Murrayfield are football venues, and as such the stands, distance from pitches and design of the stands lend themselves to being good football venues. West Hams decision to move feels very shortsighted, as it should have been clear pretty early on that the ground wasn't suitable for football (in terms of the fan experience). Thankfully, I don't believe we'd be in this situation, because there are no Olympic or Commonwealth stadiums nearby looking for tenants!  

 

I'm not against a short term move to Murrayfield to facilitate a renovation and expansion of Tynecastle though, 1 season elsewhere to allow the club to make massive strides forward is a cost I think most would be willing to accept. 

 

As before though, getting the funding in place to either expand Tynecastle, or move completely is a massive undertaking that will require financial support from the board. A new stand could be anywhere from £30-50m, a new stadium could easily reach 9 figures. Expanding what we have, assuming it would be a significant increase probably is more realistic, but if we could get funding in place, then that would be huge and allow the club a new space without all of the constraints we currently face at Tynecastle. 

 

I do wonder if an investor/benefactor could be coaxed into joining the board. What Hearts are building at the moment looks really special, revolutionary in Scotland and really exciting, a real chance to upset the duopoly. The opportunity to deliver a new stadium capable of sustaining a constant challenge to the OF and supporting our continued growth would be massive. 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

23 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Spot on I think!

 

The West Ham story I think is a worst case doomsday type scenario, and I think would only be replicated by us if we moved into Murrayfield permanently. Neither the City of London Stadium or Murrayfield are football venues, and as such the stands, distance from pitches and design of the stands lend themselves to being good football venues. West Hams decision to move feels very shortsighted, as it should have been clear pretty early on that the ground wasn't suitable for football (in terms of the fan experience). Thankfully, I don't believe we'd be in this situation, because there are no Olympic or Commonwealth stadiums nearby looking for tenants!  

 

I'm not against a short term move to Murrayfield to facilitate a renovation and expansion of Tynecastle though, 1 season elsewhere to allow the club to make massive strides forward is a cost I think most would be willing to accept. 

 

As before though, getting the funding in place to either expand Tynecastle, or move completely is a massive undertaking that will require financial support from the board. A new stand could be anywhere from £30-50m, a new stadium could easily reach 9 figures. Expanding what we have, assuming it would be a significant increase probably is more realistic, but if we could get funding in place, then that would be huge and allow the club a new space without all of the constraints we currently face at Tynecastle. 

 

I do wonder if an investor/benefactor could be coaxed into joining the board. What Hearts are building at the moment looks really special, revolutionary in Scotland and really exciting, a real chance to upset the duopoly. The opportunity to deliver a new stadium capable of sustaining a constant challenge to the OF and supporting our continued growth would be massive. 

 

 

 

I've said this before, but to me the biggest problem with Murrayfield is as you say the distances to the stands. (Hampden very much has this problem too.) They're far further back than is needed for a rugby pitch and are only there for athletics.

 

If we did make the decision to move permanently to Murrayfield (again not my preferred option by any means but a much better idea than a new stadium away from Tynecastle), it should only be in a circumstance where the lower sections of Murryafield get a major renovation to fix that issue. If convertability to an athletics stadium is absolutely non-negotiable, the stands should be built forward with seats that stop with a firm barrier before the track at an elevation of six feet or so, with removable standing terraces in front of those that sit on the track.

 

Apologies for the ugly text graphic but something like this

 

|-_

    |-_   seats

        |-_ 

            |-_ |

                |   terraces

                | ___

                |    -----____ ^^ ________grass pitch________________       

Edited March 5 by Watt-Zeefuik

[Boris5115]

1 hour ago, FarmerTweedy said:

I totally disagree.  Re the pitch dimensions, I think the small Tynecastle pitch actually hurts us.  IMO, it makes it easier for smaller teams coming to Tynecastle, looking to keep things tight and frustrate us, to do just that.  They can keep a compact shape and stop us getting through them more easily than they'd be able to if we had a full size pitch.  I think it also makes things more difficult for us when we go to Glasgow and either play away against an arsecheek or play cup semis or finals at Hampdump.  I think it adds more difficulty to those games for us, as we have to adjust to the wider spaces of those pitches.  In a footballing sense, I really do think we'd benefit overall from having a bigger home pitch, which we simply can't do in our current stadium. 

 

As far as the rest of the article is concerned, yes there would probably be a period of everyone getting used to a new stadium, and results might suffer in the short term until we do, but we'd all get used to it eventually and in the longer term it'd be fine.  Looking at the teams talked about in the article, Boro, Derby and Southampton were all outperforming their normal levels when they moved, and would probably have had similar dropoffs even if they'd stayed at their old grounds, quite possibly worse!  Spurs are just a badly run club that's made bad managerial appointments and poor signings over the last few years, and the new ground hasn't caused that.  Man City haven't exactly struggled much in their new home.  And Everton's sample size of games is so small that their win on Tuesday night has already brought their ppg up to about the same as last season's at Goodison.  

 

The only real cautionary tale from that article is West Ham, and it's less about moving and more about what you move to.  Their ground is an utterly awful design for football, with terrible views and poor atmosphere due to the stands being way too far from the pitch and to shallowly banked, which isn't really surprising as it was designed and built solely with athletics and specifically the 2012 Olympics in mind, and no real (remotely viable) plan for it after that. They should probably never have moved to that stadium in that form, although I don't know enough about potential other options they may or may not have had, or what state the Boleyn Ground was in and how pressing a need they actually had to move.  All it really tells us though, is that if we were to leave Tynecastle in the future, we must make sure the new home we move to is well designed and suited to being a football stadium, and something that Hearts fans will enjoy being in, even if it doesn't have the sentimental ties (yet) that Tynecastle does.  That means stands as close to the pitch as possible, and as tall and steeply banked as is reasonably possible and practical within both building regulations and UEFA competition regulations.  It also means, ideally, not being too big either to begin with, but with scope for further expansion if and when we need it.  All of which rules out Murrayfield! 

I'm with you re pitch size as I do think it's a hindrance. If you check  Dens park Tannadice and Pittodrie their pitches are just slightly bigger than ours but not by much. Never hear hibs fans complaining about these parks tho whine they harp on about ours.

[Bungalow Bill]

21 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

I've said this before, but to me the biggest problem with Murrayfield is as you say the distances to the stands. (Hampden very much has this problem too.) They're far further back than is needed for a rugby pitch and are only there for athletics.

 

If we did make the decision to move permanently to Murrayfield (again not my preferred option by any means but a much better idea than a new stadium away from Tynecastle), it should only be in a circumstance where the lower sections of Murryafield get a major renovation to fix that issue. If convertability to an athletics stadium is absolutely non-negotiable, the stands should be built forward with seats that stop with a firm barrier before the track at an elevation of six feet or so, with removable standing terraces in front of those that sit on the track.

 

Apologies for the ugly text graphic but something like this

 

|-_

    |-_   seats

        |-_ 

            |-_ |

                |   terraces

                | ___

                |    -----____ ^^ ________grass pitch________________       

Tynecastle pitch inside Murrayfield, huge run offs. Murrayfield is fine for one offs or on an interim basis but no way would I be happy playing there permanently.  

 

[Ribble]

On 24/02/2026 at 20:29, soonbe110 said:

Yes, easy to see how the Board have come to the conclusion that there’s no stadium development in the current plans.  Unless we found someone willing to do what Bloom did with Brighton ie pretty much fund a new stadium and recoup the investment over time, it’s pretty certain we can’t fund a new stadium.  Bloom is getting his money back because Brighton are doing well having survived several seasons in the richest league in the world.   Different story in Scotland with our tv deals and pricing structures.  
The scale of the challenge is such that if a stadium cost was £75m nett of what we get for Tynie the annual interest payments would pretty much swallow our gate receipts.  The capital repayments would swallow the FoH money.   Pretty huge hits required to our operating cost structures to allow for that.  

Think we have what we have for the next few years and need to maximise income from that and see where it takes us.    

 

Pretty sure Blooms financing of the Brighton Stadium was at 0% interest, if he or James Anderson done the same for say £80m to get us to a 30k stadium which between ticketing and catering/Merch/hospitality could increase our income by 6m a year (12k ST's at £400 is 4.8m and £1.2m from catering/merch/hospitality, say the club keeps 1m and pays back 5 then it's paid off in 16 years not withstanding any early repayments coming from player trading.

[kila]

1 hour ago, FarmerTweedy said:

...I think it also makes things more difficult for us when we go to Glasgow and either play away against an arsecheek or play cup semis or finals at Hampdump.  I think it adds more difficulty to those games for us, as we have to adjust to the wider spaces of those pitches.  In a footballing sense, I really do think we'd benefit overall from having a bigger home pitch, which we simply can't do in our current stadium...

 

Easter Road, Rugby Park, Fir Park, St Mirren Park, Almondvale, Falkirk are all 68m wide too.

 

I do agree that a 64m wide pitch is not optimal for us though.

 

As I'm in the lower rows and tend to get wet when it rains, maybe we should look at removing the roofs entirely so we can get rid of the trusses and then we can widen and lengthen the pitch   Free ponchos for those doing hospitality.

 

[kila]

4 minutes ago, Bungalow Bill said:

Tynecastle pitch inside Murrayfield, huge run offs. Murrayfield is fine for one offs or on an interim basis but no way would I be happy playing there permanently.  

 

 

Just to compare Hampden to Murrayfield again, as I really think Murrayfield is still a better stadium for watching football:

 

 

 

 

 

[damo]

1 hour ago, FarmerTweedy said:

I totally disagree.  Re the pitch dimensions, I think the small Tynecastle pitch actually hurts us.  IMO, it makes it easier for smaller teams coming to Tynecastle, looking to keep things tight and frustrate us, to do just that.  They can keep a compact shape and stop us getting through them more easily than they'd be able to if we had a full size pitch.  I think it also makes things more difficult for us when we go to Glasgow and either play away against an arsecheek or play cup semis or finals at Hampdump.  I think it adds more difficulty to those games for us, as we have to adjust to the wider spaces of those pitches.  In a footballing sense, I really do think we'd benefit overall from having a bigger home pitch, which we simply can't do in our current stadium. 

 

As far as the rest of the article is concerned, yes there would probably be a period of everyone getting used to a new stadium, and results might suffer in the short term until we do, but we'd all get used to it eventually and in the longer term it'd be fine.  Looking at the teams talked about in the article, Boro, Derby and Southampton were all outperforming their normal levels when they moved, and would probably have had similar dropoffs even if they'd stayed at their old grounds, quite possibly worse!  Spurs are just a badly run club that's made bad managerial appointments and poor signings over the last few years, and the new ground hasn't caused that.  Man City haven't exactly struggled much in their new home.  And Everton's sample size of games is so small that their win on Tuesday night has already brought their ppg up to about the same as last season's at Goodison.  

 

The only real cautionary tale from that article is West Ham, and it's less about moving and more about what you move to.  Their ground is an utterly awful design for football, with terrible views and poor atmosphere due to the stands being way too far from the pitch and to shallowly banked, which isn't really surprising as it was designed and built solely with athletics and specifically the 2012 Olympics in mind, and no real (remotely viable) plan for it after that. They should probably never have moved to that stadium in that form, although I don't know enough about potential other options they may or may not have had, or what state the Boleyn Ground was in and how pressing a need they actually had to move.  All it really tells us though, is that if we were to leave Tynecastle in the future, we must make sure the new home we move to is well designed and suited to being a football stadium, and something that Hearts fans will enjoy being in, even if it doesn't have the sentimental ties (yet) that Tynecastle does.  That means stands as close to the pitch as possible, and as tall and steeply banked as is reasonably possible and practical within both building regulations and UEFA competition regulations.  It also means, ideally, not being too big either to begin with, but with scope for further expansion if and when we need it.  All of which rules out Murrayfield! 

Totally agree re the pitch size. Its remarkable we manage to get so many wins given there are only a handful of teams that come to Tynecastle to play open football.  No coincidence to me that unless we get an early goal or play a team that play on the front foot the games are often a hard watch.  (Is one reason I think Rudi Skacel was so effective at home. Couple of strides and he's within shooting distance and arrow-ing one on goal). 

 

As we improve our level of players (attacking midfielders etc) with JTA, it may become less of an issue for us.  

 

[Craig_]

1 hour ago, Bungalow Bill said:

Tynecastle pitch inside Murrayfield, huge run offs. Murrayfield is fine for one offs or on an interim basis but no way would I be happy playing there permanently.  

 

 

Just need to dig down the way and put a few extra rows in the stands.

 

Not sure whether that would take you below the water table, right enough... 

[gwd1957]

On 24/02/2026 at 11:08, kila said:

 

 

Yes ,that's how they arrived in section's bolted together 

[soonbe110]

6 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

Pretty sure Blooms financing of the Brighton Stadium was at 0% interest, if he or James Anderson done the same for say £80m to get us to a 30k stadium which between ticketing and catering/Merch/hospitality could increase our income by 6m a year (12k ST's at £400 is 4.8m and £1.2m from catering/merch/hospitality, say the club keeps 1m and pays back 5 then it's paid off in 16 years not withstanding any early repayments coming from player trading.

Big ask though.  Blooms situation at Brighton was different as he owned the club, he doesn’t/wont at Hearts.  Also don’t believe we would get anything like an extra 12k season ticket holders and they wouldn’t be at an average price of £400.  Currently we probably receive less than £300 per season ticket on average. Only possible with a very generous benefactor which is probably why it won’t happen. 

[gwd1957]

On 24/02/2026 at 12:14, spirt of 98 said:

One upgrade I want to see is the Derek McInnes statue on the plaza holding the league winners trophy. May be a Tony Bloom and Ann Budge either side. 

SKY Sports can't even manage  to show Derek in a Hearts kit ,still appears in Kilmarnock gear ,Sky is pish only interested in the vile OF

[Seymour M Hersh]

What sort of capacity do folk think we should have?

[johnking123]

12 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

What sort of capacity do folk think we should have?

30k or just over. Give us space to grow into. Keeping going the way we are and we will grow fast. We would be able to have higher wages.  

[OTT]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

What sort of capacity do folk think we should have?

 

If funding was no object ?

 

30,000. Maybe even 32,000. 

 

I think where the Main Stand fell down was failing to provide meaningful room to grow (I'm aware there were reasons beyond our control there). 

 

Having room to grow into a new stadium capacity would be amazing. I think the club has no flexibility at the moment. We don't really have enough capacity to do free tickets for schools, "bring a mate" type deals, families are stuck with young kids growing older and wanting to attend but not being able to get a season ticket, we have a huge number of people on a season ticket waiting list which is no longer taking names etc (which as at 2023 was 7k which assuming all gold adults at £425 a pop is just shy of £3m a season). Being able to make supporting the club accessible to the next generation of supporter is critical, and a consequence of success is that folk won't give up their season tickets, which means getting more casual fans into the habit of attending is really difficult since a lot of folk don't want to plan out their visit weeks in advance, and we're now in a situation where going on the fly is very difficult. 

 

Giving ourselves a bit of headroom so the club has flexibility to do promotions and make efforts to get those tickets over and above our core support sold would be brilliant 

 

I think this is the sweetspot, where we don't fall into the "Your stadiums too big for you" nonsense, but also that there is sufficient capacity to deal with demand and look to the future. 

 

Also, I reckon anything less than 30k with our success at the moment, would just immediately be eaten up and we'd be in the same situation (albeit with more money to play with). 

[JJ1984]

7 hours ago, kila said:

 

Just to compare Hampden to Murrayfield again, as I really think Murrayfield is still a better stadium for watching football:

 

 

 

 

 

Hampden  looks well better. 

[FarmerTweedy]

52 minutes ago, JJ1984 said:

Hampden  looks well better. 

This is sarcasm, yes?

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

If funding was no object ?

 

30,000. Maybe even 32,000. 

 

I think where the Main Stand fell down was failing to provide meaningful room to grow (I'm aware there were reasons beyond our control there). 

 

Having room to grow into a new stadium capacity would be amazing. I think the club has no flexibility at the moment. We don't really have enough capacity to do free tickets for schools, "bring a mate" type deals, families are stuck with young kids growing older and wanting to attend but not being able to get a season ticket, we have a huge number of people on a season ticket waiting list which is no longer taking names etc (which as at 2023 was 7k which assuming all gold adults at £425 a pop is just shy of £3m a season). Being able to make supporting the club accessible to the next generation of supporter is critical, and a consequence of success is that folk won't give up their season tickets, which means getting more casual fans into the habit of attending is really difficult since a lot of folk don't want to plan out their visit weeks in advance, and we're now in a situation where going on the fly is very difficult. 

 

Giving ourselves a bit of headroom so the club has flexibility to do promotions and make efforts to get those tickets over and above our core support sold would be brilliant 

 

I think this is the sweetspot, where we don't fall into the "Your stadiums too big for you" nonsense, but also that there is sufficient capacity to deal with demand and look to the future. 

 

Also, I reckon anything less than 30k with our success at the moment, would just immediately be eaten up and we'd be in the same situation (albeit with more money to play with). 

My ideal scenario if we were building a new stadium from scratch would be a capacity of around 30-32k initially, but built in a way, and with sufficient space around it, to allow us to add further capacity in the future, to get to at least 40k if the demand is there.  I don't think we'd fill 30-32k immediately if we were building such a thing now or soon, but I think we'd grow into it relatively quickly, and quite possibly beyond it not long after that. 

[johnking123]

Just now, FarmerTweedy said:

My ideal scenario if we were building a new stadium from scratch would be a capacity of around 30-32k initially, but built in a way, and with sufficient space around it, to allow us to add further capacity in the future, to get to at least 40k if the demand is there.  I don't think we'd fill 30-32k immediately if we were building such a thing now or soon, but I think we'd grow into it relatively quickly, and quite possibly beyond it not long after that. 

A bit like Brighton did.

[JJ1984]

2 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

This is sarcasm, yes?

No,looks absolute crap the goals miles away from the stands.  Hampden is major under rated.  It's actually better at Scotland games though.  Its weird, when we go to hampden in Semi's and finals its got a day out feel to it.  When its big Scotland games and we win it's like Tynie when we win a big game.  Hard to explain. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

11 hours ago, Bungalow Bill said:

Tynecastle pitch inside Murrayfield, huge run offs. Murrayfield is fine for one offs or on an interim basis but no way would I be happy playing there permanently.  

 

 

That was exactly why I wrote a whole thing in the post you replied to about renovating Murrayfield to bring the stands closer to the pitch. You dig the pitch down and install movable standing terraces around the inside.

[trigger21]

Build this. 30k capacity. It does have a couple of issues but we could learn from those mistakes 

[If carlsberg did rivals...]

18 minutes ago, trigger21 said:

Build this. 30k capacity. It does have a couple of issues but we could learn from those mistakes 

The window cleaning bill would bankrupt us! 😂

[Craig_]

38 minutes ago, trigger21 said:

Build this. 30k capacity. It does have a couple of issues but we could learn from those mistakes 

 

Very smart. Also cost nearly £100m fifteen years ago! 

[indianajones]

11 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

What sort of capacity do folk think we should have?

 

Camp Nou is 99,354 so I think somewhere around 102,000 should likely meet demands for the next two to three years. Will need to look at future options for expansion after this time frame with likely numerous European final victories under our belt. 

 

 

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

1 hour ago, indianajones said:

 

Camp Nou is 99,354 so I think somewhere around 102,000 should likely meet demands for the next two to three years. Will need to look at future options for expansion after this time frame with likely numerous European final victories under our belt. 

 

 

101,515 please.

 

Otherwise, entirely sensible.  I’m in with my 10 quid a month for life.

[Jingle Bells]

On 24/02/2026 at 12:33, OTT said:

 

A very fair question - I would assume a combination of prize money, transfer fees and investment from the board/FOH plus the money for the site Tyncastle is currently on (should we move) and probably some form of loan. We did the 500 club to help fund construction back in the 90s didn't we? I'm sure fans would be receptive to something similar, which alone won't make a dent but hopefully in conjunction with everything else could help get us a decent chunk of the way there. 

 

You're spot on though, the how of how we fund it is a big question, we have no right to expect Tony Bloom or James Anderson to put their hands in their pockets. 

 

As long as the Club can cover the interest on a long term Loan anything is feasible.

It's the kind of long term project that the FOH subs should be used for, imho.

Personally, I think giving up a City Centre location would be a mistake and we should redevelop the Wheatfield, if the planning objections can be overcome.