FC Edinburgh / Meadowbank Stadium shambles

[stirlo]

8 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Does it look as bad as people are making out?

 

Wasn't finished last time I went I was up but was near enough there. I thought it looked similar to our main stand. Bland but inoffensive and pretty slick.

 

Our main stand is an architectural masterpiece compared with that - and cost a lot less.

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, stirlo said:

 

Our main stand is an architectural masterpiece compared with that - and cost a lot less.

 

 

Not sure if it changed a lot from this render but it's broadly how I remember it. They're pretty stylistically similar imo. Neither really floats my boat, but neither are awful.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Taffin

[stirlo]

3 minutes ago, Sooks said:

I think although I am not totally sure that they had to reduce the capacity in order to fit all the internal improvements in to the existing foot print 

 

At Sighthill there was room for all the internal improvements and a six thousand covered seating provision 

 

Yes - but my recollection is that the challenges around fitting things within the existing footprint was because the 'existing footprint' was effectively being reduced, because part of the site was being sold for housing. That is what the whole thing is really about. I don't disagree with you though that if it was a fait accompli that part of the site was being sold for housing, it would have been better to find an alternative site such as Sighthill.   

[stirlo]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

Not sure if it changed a lot from this render but it's broadly how I remember it. They're pretty stylistically similar imo. Neither really floats my boat, but neither are awful.

 

I think the artist's impression looks better than the end result - but it is the 'stadium' side of the development that is the worst part.

[Sooks]

Just now, stirlo said:

 

Yes - but my recollection is that the challenges around fitting things within the existing footprint was because the 'existing footprint' was effectively being reduced, because part of the site was being sold for housing. That is what the whole thing is really about. I don't disagree with you though that if it was a fait accompli that part of the site was being sold for housing, it would have been better to find an alternative site such as Sighthill.   

Probably was as you said about the housing mate ………. Feels like a real missed opportunity to me where we could have had some thing pretty spectacular but in true short sighted Edinburgh style we end up with a scaled back pile of keech

 

 

[jimbojambo]

I think our new stand is on trend and crucially fit for purpose to quote the pieman. The Meadowbank one is sixties retro which ironically what it was before 

Edited August 8, 2022 by jimbojambo

[stirlo]

1 minute ago, jimbojambo said:

I think our new stand is on trend and crucially fit for purpose to quote the purpose. The Meadowbank one is sixties retro which ironically what it was before 

 

I don't mind the new main stand. For the money that was spent it's actually pretty decent - and of course that big badge in the middle of it is a thing of beauty. 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

17 minutes ago, stirlo said:

 

I think the artist's impression looks better than the end result - but it is the 'stadium' side of the development that is the worst part.

I wouldn't call it a stadium any longer, it's a running track next to an indoor sports hall built in a warehouse style. Football needs grounds without running tracks where fans are next to the pitch. I know Roma and Lazio make it work but it isn't ideal from a supporters position .

[Jamboross]

The London Road side of Meadowbank is absolutely fine, the original plans looked much better but were value engineered down to what we ended up with. It's not about to win any RIBA Awards but it's functional and that's all a sports centre really needs to be. 

 

The football side of things would be much better if FC Edinburgh weren't getting dicked around with planning for the stand and facilities they want to add on the opposite side of the pitch. They had planning permission approved then the housing developers that are due to build at the back of the site along Marionville Road disputed it over a tiny patch of land. If/when that new stand gets the go-ahead it will still be quite a distance from the pitch so not ideal but will be significantly better than what is currently there. They probably would have been better continuing to share with Spartans or going to the 'Mini Murrayfield' or even Meggetland for the time being but I can understand them wanting to get 'home'. 

 

Incidentially I don't think the £47m cost is too bad for a modern community sports facility that was never really intended to be a football stadium, long term that cost will be more than covered from revenue from all the housing being built around the site as well. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Jamboross

[pablo]

3 hours ago, Taffin said:

Does it look as bad as people are making out?

 

Wasn't finished last time I went I was up but was near enough there. I thought it looked similar to our main stand. Bland but inoffensive and pretty slick.

 

It's really ugly. It looks like an 1990s out of town retail park building. 

[stan]

3 hours ago, Sooks said:

No but the council had already managed to get funding from Sport Scotland and obviously the sale of Meadowbank would have contributed too for a six thousand capacity sports complex at Sighthill 

 

People moaned their tits off about it and instead they were forced to tart up Meadowbank instead

 

The Sighthill plan sounded and looked quality from the plans but sadly every time some one tries to bring something top class to this city the local get up in arms about it

I may be wrong but I had thought the criticism was about the loss of facilities at Meadowbank and it's replacement being a mediocre housing development, rather than the arrival of new facilities at Sighthill.

The resulting loss of facilities is on the hopeless plan B that resulted from that.

 

[Sooks]

33 minutes ago, stan said:

I may be wrong but I had thought the criticism was about the loss of facilities at Meadowbank and it's replacement being a mediocre housing development, rather than the arrival of new facilities at Sighthill.

The resulting loss of facilities is on the hopeless plan B that resulted from that.

 

Could be they scaled it back but whenever I saw any thing about the Sighthill plan it was a six thousand stadium with top class facilities ……… biggest objections I was aware of was from folk in Sight who did not want to lose the park plus the Mum and kids protestors at Meadowbank who did not want to travel to the other side of the city

[Mikey1874]

A few comments here on losing international athletics. In terms of the events now called the Diamond League, Edinburgh lost those in the 90s because it didn't produce the crowds required. 

[Super_Hans]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

A few comments here on losing international athletics. In terms of the events now called the Diamond League, Edinburgh lost those in the 90s because it didn't produce the crowds required. 

Yeah, I'd guess the last time the old Meadowbank was close to capacity for athletics was the GB v USA International match in 1993. Scotstoun held a few international matches ahead of Meadowbank in the years following.

 

The new place seems perfectly fine hosting the Scottish Championships and New Year Sprint.

 

For football, nah.

[Greenbank2]

On 08/08/2022 at 13:50, Chuck Berry said:

 

How does the implementation of the Pyramid structure impact on how Meadowbank was rebuilt?  What's a "jobsworth woke rule"?

 

A Entry level SFA Licence is required to play in the SPFL and the Lowland League, there isn't a set of SPFL rules over and above this, and Licences don't just cover facilities. Cove Rangers play in the Championship with an Entry level licence. FC Edinburgh have an Entry level licence.

 

My point is that meadowbank has been rebuilt to comply with the league rules, but pays scant regard to the fan experience. That may be OK as it is a multi-sport facility, but IMO the rules should be updated to address the issue that the OP raises.  I gave an example of a "jobsworth woke rule".

 

The stadium rules for entry to the Scottish Cup are different from the league.

[XB52]

My pal was at the pars game there and gave up half way through the 2nd half. Miles away from the action,  one portaloo and one burger van 

[Footballfirst]

45 minutes ago, Greenbank2 said:

My point is that meadowbank has been rebuilt to comply with the league rules, but pays scant regard to the fan experience. That may be OK as it is a multi-sport facility, but IMO the rules should be updated to address the issue that the OP raises.  I gave an example of a "jobsworth woke rule".

 

The stadium rules for entry to the Scottish Cup are different from the league.

It hasn't been rebuilt to comply with league rules. It has been rebuilt to function as a multi sports facility for the people of Edinburgh.

 

It was FC Edinburgh's choice to relocate from Ainslie Park to Meadowbank.

 

As far as the SFA licencing rules go, Meadowbank meets the ground criteria for an entry level licence, which is the minimum required by FC Edinburgh to play there.

 

The ground criteria has various aspects to it, including floodlighting, pitch size, cover for 100 spectators, pitch screened off from public view, turnstiles, public toilets, changing facilities for teams and officials etc. It meets all of them.

 

If the facilities don't meet your expectations as an away fan, then just don't go and deprive them of your cash.

[Chuck Berry]

4 hours ago, Greenbank2 said:

My point is that meadowbank has been rebuilt to comply with the league rules, but pays scant regard to the fan experience. That may be OK as it is a multi-sport facility, but IMO the rules should be updated to address the issue that the OP raises.  I gave an example of a "jobsworth woke rule".

 

The stadium rules for entry to the Scottish Cup are different from the league.

 

Meadowbank wasn't re-built to comply with "league rules", and the "stadium rules" for entry to the Scottish Cup require an SFA licence, the same licence you need for the SPFL.  The only exception being if you're a non-SFA member but a league Champion eg Carnoustie and Invergordon this year.

 

You need to look up the meaning of "woke"

Edited August 16, 2022 by Chuck Berry

[Greenbank2]

On 16/08/2022 at 15:52, Chuck Berry said:

 

Meadowbank wasn't re-built to comply with "league rules", and the "stadium rules" for entry to the Scottish Cup require an SFA licence, the same licence you need for the SPFL.  The only exception being if you're a non-SFA member but a league Champion eg Carnoustie and Invergordon this year.

 

You need to look up the meaning of "woke"

I am well aware of the meaning of woke. I use it in the context of social justice. The league rule that prevents your stadium being overlooked by a road is socially unjust when there are many overlooked by blocks of housing.

[Chuck Berry]

1 hour ago, Greenbank2 said:

I am well aware of the meaning of woke. I use it in the context of social justice. The league rule that prevents your stadium being overlooked by a road is socially unjust when there are many overlooked by blocks of housing.

 

That's a very strange way to use the term "woke", social justice? no it's an SFA requirement. The requirement is;

 

"The boundary wall and / or fence must be permanent and of sound construction, secure on all sides and designed to obscure viewing into the ground from publicly accessible areas.  The recommended height of boundary structure is 2 metres."

 

Common sense tells you that you cannot stop someone watching out the window of their house if it overlooks a ground, neither is it publicly accessible.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Chuck Berry

[August Landmesser]

14 minutes ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

That's a very strange way to use the term "woke", social justice? no it's an SFA requirement. The requirement is;

 

"The boundary wall and / or fence must be permanent and of sound construction, secure on all sides and designed to obscure viewing into the ground from publicly accessible areas.  The recommended height of boundary structure is 2 metres."

 

Common sense tells you that you cannot stop someone watching out the window of their house if it overlooks a ground, neither is it publicly accessible.

it's political correctness gone mad! Bloody loony left Marxists taking over the SFA knitting their own yoghurt and having lesbian drumming circles on the pitch in secret behind their boundary walls. Booooo!!!1111

[Poseidon]

On 08/08/2022 at 18:24, Sooks said:

Could be they scaled it back but whenever I saw any thing about the Sighthill plan it was a six thousand stadium with top class facilities ……… biggest objections I was aware of was from folk in Sight who did not want to lose the park plus the Mum and kids protestors at Meadowbank who did not want to travel to the other side of the city

There was a lot of noise from the wannabe 'elite' athletes that didn't fancy the trip across town. 

 

 

[Sooks]

24 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

There was a lot of noise from the wannabe 'elite' athletes that didn't fancy the trip across town. 

 

 

 

Which is just madness really