´óÏó´«Ã½

New everytime.. use a toilet in an old stadium and the view would probably be unanimous!

The point you made about standing sections would be a welcome trial.. it has proved popular in Germany.

You wonder though where Clyde are going to because the move has had to be made you would assume on financial grounds.

If there is a lack of feeling and attachment to them in Cumbernauld then it will be no different elsewhere. After all they can't go back to the Shawfield area.

The omens are not good for clubs who either don't own their grounds (e.g. Dundee) or who like Clyde will perhaps have a more nomadic existence.

Bye bye Clyde

Possibly bye bye Dundee as well.

Though those old programmes will be worth a lot more if they go! Every cloud as they say..

Another good blog Jack - you're making a bit of a habit of this!

I think the writing was on the wall for Clyde at Cumbernauld when they missed out on promotion to the SPL a few years ago. They had a fantastic team & a real feelgood factor around them back then, but it has slowly been dismantled, which is a shame. The whole club seems to have lost momentum at a rapid rate of knots, so it's not a surprise that the directors had to act in some way to arrest it.

When building some new grounds, planners & clubs completely forget what makes a ground special & tend to get quite lazy building a "Majo-Kit" stadium rather than building something a club & it's fans can identify with. Too many club directors seem to think that building a new stadium is the answer to their financial problems, too - if only it were as easy!

Some clubs try to do something a bit different with stadium design & it works. The Reebok Stadium in Bolton is a fantastic place to watch football, as is the McAlpine Stadium (or whatever it's called now) in Huddersfield and the Britannia Stadium in Stoke - and they are not just good because of their size. The Caledonian Stadium & Greenhill Road are lacking imagination & are too open, therefore it's hard to get excited about either going there or watching a match there.

And don't get me started about the half-finished white elephants of Dumbarton, Hamilton & Falkirk...

Just a thought - what on earth are the owners of Broadwood going to do with a football stadium & no football team?

@ blogcritic

That's exactly what the people running Clyde will be thinking. They know that the owners (South Lanarkshire Council?) will never find any other use for a stadium like Broadwood, and are threatening to move hoping for a bargain.

I doubt they'd leave Broadwood for a Nomadic existence - on the other hand, a move to East Kilbride seems plausible.

Very interesting blog Jack. I've voiced strong concerns over the bland dull architecture of many of the newer football grounds especially those built in the lower tiers. I place a lot of the blame at Fifa's door - they take the WC all over the world but in demanding stadia 'look good' for T.V. we end up knocking down and replacing iconic arenas with soulless, 'flat-pack' designs. The stadia in South Africa was pretty similar to Germany and Japan/S.K and will be no doubt in Brazil.

I think variety is the spice of life, 'small, safe' standing sections should be allowed, banners encouraged and countries sporting traditions encouraged. Sanatising the look doesn't mean the toilets can't be fixed ;)

Oh, and I should say, old traditional stadiums every time. Terraced areas are completely safe when well managed. I love going to Somerset Park, the facilities there aren't brilliant but it's a lovely ground. For every decent traditional style ground I guess there are horrible ones like Cappielow too.

If you look up Burton Albion's ground (the Pirelli Stadium I think), it is a great example of a modern stadium that allows a decent atmosphere dues to it's low ceilings, despite looking like an identikit ground.

#1 Much as many of us would love to see standing sections at football grounds (mind you many league one and two grounds still have them - and they're some of my favourite grounds), it will never happen. The memories of Heysel, and Hillsborough are still to painful. These suggestions, no matter how well researched and presented will never get government backing.

New grounds in general are soul-less affairs. I had the misfortune to visit Shrewsbury last season and i've never seen a football stadium more lacking in atmosphere, energy or excitement. The same can be said for Morecambe, Oxford, Darlington and many many more.

There's a very special appeal in visiting grounds such as Accrington, Cheltenham and Aldershot. Real grounds with real character. Such things are irreplaceable.

Legoland stadiums are awful in my opinion. My favourite grounds are old school and I especially love the South Enclosure (The Derry) at Dens. It's nothing to look at and despite it's portakabin catering united and lack of toilets it's the undoubted spiritural home of the club.

When the team scores they always run to the Derry because they recognise it is the area where most support comes from.

or is there "direct correlation" to the fact Falkirk and St Mirren didn't enjoy a good start to life in their new stadia and the fact you played for them both Jack ;)

Livingston, Almondvale rubbish for a match but good conferencing facilities!

good blog

Sorry to be a dissenting voice here but the yearning for old stadia is just nostalgia gone mad. I watch a fair bit of junior football these days where modern facilities can mean a new bit of paving on the mud pools, and when I pay to watch the professionals I expect a seat and some shelter and not crammed between some swaying growlers spilling their bovril.

I really do prefer new stadia: spent too many years in ramshackle dens as a kid straining to see what was going on and the action being regularly cut off by some guy in front and others using terracing as an open toilet, blah, blah. Some may call that character!

I go to watch the football not soak in the atmosphere at rip-off prices.

Just in the same way that banning alcohol in Scottish grounds in the early 80's was the best thing they did to improve the fan experience in Scotland, health and safety should mean that they will never re-introduce terracing to top flight UK football anytime soon. Thank goodness.

#5
Its North Lanarkshire Council.

It will be a stand-off and Clyde may get a small reduction in their rent but they will not be going to East Kilbride. The Junior team already occupy the only ground in EK that could take them.

In this recession no other local council will provide any professional team with a ready-made ground, especially one that has walked away from another Council area. Its a no-brainer.

@11 Although I agree with you about the (un)likelihood of going to East Kilbride, it is the obvious place. Despite the 'south side of Glasgow' description, they are a South Lanarkshire side, of course, being from Rutherglen originally. Moreover, East Kilbride is by some distance the largest town in Scotland without a league football team. So, a near-return to their roots, and to a larger town than Cumbernauld. But, yes, the junior team has its home there, and shouldn't be displaced.

Broadwood is horrible. And Jack is right - Brockville was a far better day out than the new Falkirk Stadium is. I haven't been to St Mirren's new ground, so I can't comment on that, but I did enjoy visiting Love St.

#3: "Some clubs try to do something a bit different with stadium design & it works. The Reebok Stadium in Bolton is a fantastic place to watch football, as is the McAlpine Stadium (or whatever it's called now) in Huddersfield and the Britannia Stadium in Stoke - and they are not just good because of their size."

It's interesting that you choose these stadia as examples. Huddersfield Town and Bolton Wanderers' stadia share pretty much the exact same design, and the Britannia Stadium in Stoke shares a very very similar design with, among others, Derby, Middlesbrough, Darlington, Sunderland and Milton Keynes.


For me, the design of the stadium is less important than the fans who are in it. Stoke and Sunderland have turned their stadia into cauldrons yet the atmosphere in an identical stadium in Middlesbrough or Derby is really rather tepid. For me it comes down to the fans- Roker Park was noisy so the Stadium of Light is; the Victoria Ground was a hard place to go and so is the Britannia Stadium. It's easy for people to blame the new ground for a lack of atmosphere, but regardless of where you play, it is up to the fans to provide that atmosphere.

The only real exception to that is where the new ground is too big for the club. My club, Bradford, essentially rebuilt our ground and now there's no atmosphere because there's 8000 people rattling around in a 26,000 seater stadium, and it is the same in Darlington- 3000 people will never make a lot of noise in a 25,000 seater stadium.

"Another good blog Jack - you're making a bit of a habit of this!

I think the writing was on the wall for Clyde at Cumbernauld when they missed out on promotion to the SPL a few years ago. They had a fantastic team & a real feelgood factor around them back then, but it has slowly been dismantled, which is a shame. The whole club seems to have lost momentum at a rapid rate of knots, so it's not a surprise that the directors had to act in some way to arrest it."

Have to agree with all the above. I was brought up in Cumbernauld, and before moving south, I used to go and see Clyde pretty regularly. This was between 1994 and 1998, in the days when we had Charlie Nicholas turning out for us! There was a good atmosphere then, and momentum was building. We'd managed to get promoted to the first division, and crowds were building nicely. However, what killed it, in my opinion, was relegation. This in itself would have knocked a couple of hundred off the crowd, but the nail in the coffin was the disasterous decision not to reduce ticket prices in the light of this. We were expected to pay the same to watch part-time cloggers, as we were to watch (by first division standards) ambitious teams like the Falkirk side of the mid nineties, or Dunfermline Athletic of the same era, and I, like hundreds of others, voted with my feet.

Yet, I was the sort of fan that Clyde should have been moving heaven and earth to retain. I was a student in my late teens then, working part-time . I was in the natural catchment area(if we pretend that other factors don't come into it)to go and see Celtic or Rangers, but couldn't afford to. I was ripe for indoctrination! But pricing me out of it put paid to that.

Now we live in an era where you can watch top spanish and premiership football sides each month for the same as it would cost you to get into a first division ground. I'm not saying entry to grounds should be priced on some sort of sliding scale to that, but that's the comparison that most parents and their kids will bring to mind when weighing up whether it's worth paying the entry fee.

#12

EK is the obvious place for a profesional team: big population base, good transport links, reasonable employment and income levels with no existing professional team.

Not surprising then that the town is largely Old Firm territory.

But it won't be Clyde. They had the opportunity to come quite some time ago I believe, they didn't for whatever reasons and they are now effectively more or less locked into their current arrangements.

@2
"Though those old programmes will be worth a lot more if they go! Every cloud as they say.."

I wish you wouldn't be quite so flippant about the possible demise of someone else's football club.. It's no right!

Great post from Mikey about the German system with its managed terraces. Seems like the perfect system - bigger crowds & reduced ticket prices = more atmosphere.

Paul Fletcher has a good blog about a new stadium success /blogs/paulfletcher/2010/11/chesterfield.html

I think in Scotland you need to look at the overall experience of going to watch football, which is awful.
1) Miserable weather to watch in.
2) You're surrounded by angry men shouting foul abuse for 90 minutes.
3) Genuinely crap food.
4) No beer allowed.
5) Generally poor standard of football due to pitches and a style of football out of touch with the modern game (but suited to the weather).
6) No extras. Sporting events in the USA are crap as a spectacle, but the expereince is enjoyable due to other factors outside the game. They know how to sell it, we don't.

Step up a host of people saying 'man-up' regarding condtions, facilities etc, but the days when punters flooded out of factory gates and into the stadiums are long gone. Why do we continue to roll out a product that suits that era when ways of living have moved on?

I suggest:
1) Summer football - better watching & playing conditions.
2) Sunday football - allows junior & amateur players to attend local games.
3) Increase community initiatives & seperate hardcore from casual supporters
4) Terracing for the hardcore behind goals with price incentives for loyalty.
5) Improve food, and bring back beer.

#16

There are too many clubs in Scotland already and if some go through financial mismangement then so what they only have themselves to blame. For example, Dundee have been in administration twice now in the past 7 years because they could not do their sums and opted for the high risk business strategy of paying big wages and expecting promotion. It didn't happen and then all of a sudden many of their fans moan about it all being a bit unfair. If they go, they deserve to go no two ways about it.

And yes at least my old programmes will be worth something..

#17

Alcohol is never coming back to Scottish grounds anytime soon. Why? Because we have the highest levels of alcohol abuse in Western Europe, the highest incidences of early mortality and then there is the link between alcohol consumption and violence.

And into the already heady brew of say an old firm game, you want to introduce some alcohol? Best of luck with that carnage.

11. At 9:39pm on 13 Dec 2010, Rob04 wrote:

Sorry to be a dissenting voice here but the yearning for old stadia is just nostalgia gone mad.
____________________________________________________________


Couldn't agree more. We probably all grew up watching football in a rubbish stadium somewhere across the UK, and they were great days, but life & the game today have changed dramatically since then.


Two points:

1) Alcohol will never return to football grounds in Scotland.

2) Neither will terracing.


As with most fun things in life, the minority spoil it for the majority, but football fans in general have proven that they cannot be trusted with either. Neither will return, we must forget about them.

# 13: Very valid point, I agree that it takes far more than just a cleverly designed stadium to make for a good atmosphere. My point was that the architect has shaped the Reebok, McAlpine & Britannia stadia in such a manner as to harness the noise created naturally. Much the same way as Tynecastle does, although that was out of necessity because of surrounding buildings.

I don't care how noisy or passionate the fans are, they are simply not going to be heard in a Forthbank-type stadium unless the place is absolutely full. Even then, the noise generated just kind of drifts away in the vast empty space...

As an ex-team captain at Clyde Fc Jack, where would you like to see them playing?

Stay at Broadwood?

Back to Shawfield?

Move to East Kilbride?

Somewhere else?

18, agreed - too many teams for too small a population. I often have an argument with mates over whether I would support a KilmAyrnock/Ayrshire pro side. If it was a nice stadium, easy to get to, a good atmosphere and a decent team, I would.

As for the beer - people get a skinful before the game as they know they can't drink when they get in. The headbangers are drunk anyway. An expensive in-stadium pint would allow people who want a pint a more enjoyable experience, and the price would put the headbangers off.

Old firm games is a fair point....special booze ban on that one. Plus they dont need the extra revenue. Maybe they can have it once their fans settle down a bit.

The drinking situation is a bit embarrasing though. Scotland not allowed Friday night home qualifiers....only country in Europe....

To those reminising about old grounds, it is worth bearing in mind we only hype those up because we replace them with something worse!

If there were no new grounds, current conversation would be focused on how we need to build new, state of the art stadia. With conference facilities!

I think a successful modern stadium would be Almondvale with terracing at either end. Bigger crowds & more noise, and the bowl to keep the sound in.

#17 I agree with all your points although I doubt many other will. Unfortunately, I also doubt any of the ideas will ever be implemented. Scotland is completely retrogressive in their outlook on sport and in particular towards football.

The standard of football is soooo poor it’s intolerable. A simple move to play over summer would help the standard a little both in terms of making the pitches more playable and in turn the game more watchable.

Unfortunately Scotland’s problems in terms of football run much deeper and the poor stadiums etc are simply symbolic of the poor quality embedded in Scottish football.

Bring back Gazza, Laudrup, the De Boers’, Di Canio, Larsson et al pleaseeee

I really cant agree with the nostalgia gone mad comments - football should be for all, seats for those that want seats and terrace for those that want to stand with other like minded folk who shout and chant - its not nostalgia its preference. Both should be accomodated without there being any safety issues. I have been to a lot of these pre-fab stadia and your knees are generally in the back of the person sat in front of you, its hard to sit with fans who want to generate an atmosphere and I believe fans wanting to sit quietly and watch games are accomodated at the expense of those that like a good sing song. Bring back the terraces to a certain extent and provide everyone with a bit of the stadium they are happy with - it doesnt have to be one or the other.

#2 & #18

no disrespect...well actually yeah lots I guess you are one of the new breed of football fan who has latched on as it's "cool".
Well i hope you "go out of buisness" before you can enjoy the money from your tatty little programme collection.

You stand to watch football. Even if you are at home watching a live match you instinctively stand up if something exciting is happening. The Pars haven't moved but the ground is different from the old days. Bring back the terraces!

#25

I've watched Scottish football and many others all my life so nothing 'cool' about my interest in the game.

Perhaps you are from the 'latte' crowd as you obviously fail to spot the normal banter.

But more seriously, the worth of my odd few Dundee programmes will be nothing compared to the amounts the directors of DundeeFC have willfully avoided paying into the tax collecting public purse. But perhaps you are one of those who think that some (but not all) football clubs should effectively be publicly subsidised and that there should be no criticism of failed ambition.

#27
Old school myself lower league team clue is in the user name. Banter isn't hoping that people fail, not on my own in thinking this see #16. As for your supposistion of what i think you baffle me on how you came to this conclusion.

#29
Yes it is. Wasn't banter that got Dundee FC in their current position.

They did that all for themselves and have no one else to blame.

If safe standing is good enough for the Germans its good enough for us. It's got no relevance to Hillsborough at all save that standing became associated with the problem. The Taylor report which makes interesting reading doesnt actually say standing caused the disaster.

There would no fences. This was the problem at Hillsborough in terms of what actually hurt and killed people because of crushing. If these werent there the fans would have been able to escape onto the pitch.
There would be fold up seats with tickets sold strictly in line to a space on the ground, people wouldn't be barging in with no tickets or being shunted into a packed area you would go in where your ticket dictated. Even if everyone had to go through one gate there would be no fences or pens to cause a crush.
The hooligan element of the 80's had dramatically reduced to the extent a Heysel scenario is unthinkable in the modern European game

Its unfair but understandable that some with emotional connection to the disaster stand in the path of the will of the people through their own grief. You do not solve a problem by avoiding it.

Would those who perished in these disasters want the game to become sanitised, overpriced and middle class with future generations priced out and forced to sit in silence or would they want their tragic legacy to clean up the policing and organisation of stadia whilst allowing future generations to stand on the Kop, Stretford End or Shed End as they did.

Its a real disgrace the negligence of those organising the security at a game 20 years ago are allowed to hide behind the idea the fans standing being to blame.

I think this question is highly relevant to the Spurs situation.
On the one hand, they are an entertaining and successful club with a huge season ticket waiting list and need to expand their stadium capacity. To that end, they have come up with what appears to be an excellent scheme for a brand new stadium that will keep them at their traditional WHL home. But it will be expensive (competing with team building and star retention for resources), will have to be done in stages (so they keep playing on the existing pitch until the final phase), faces a long and tedious bureaucratic process, with no guarantee of final approval, and - as I understand it - hasn't received a penny in incentive money, despite the obvious desire to keep the club in an area where it is providing huge community benefits.
On the other hand, there is a ready-made alternative, in the Olympic Stadium, that offers considerable advantages, not least of which would be a dramatic cost saving. Against that, it would involve moving the club from its traditional home (tho' not very far, given its very widespread drawing power) and certain compromises in terms of design and preservation of other sporting facilities.
No-one doubts that Spurs would prefer to remain in north London, but for the long-term benefit of the club, a serious business decision will have to be taken somewhere down the line that will inevitably leave some people disappointed.
It is clearly a decision that should be part of an overall planning scheme for the whole of London (if such a thing exists - sometimes I wonder just how much urban planning actually occurs), but government cannot impose a whole series of terms and restrictions, affecting possibly millions of people, and expect the club to shoulder the entire financial burden (the success of Barcelona and RM owe much to an unwritten government/club partnership, for example - not that I'm advocating that model). Sentiment plays a major role in football - very few people would invest in it otherwise - but the growing professionalism that is being demanded of the sport imposes the need for decision making that takes into account all of the factors and involves all the stakeholders, but in the end has to make financial sense.

@ 31: anyone who has ever been through the experience (as I have, and I'm not small and helpless) of being 'carried' 30 feet by a crowd in motion, trying to keep one's feet in touch with the ground and praying one doesn't fall - knowing that it could mean death or serious injury - would ever advocate stands over seating. And the idea of not having any barriers is absurd - you can't allow crowds direct access to the pitch. Education may have improved over the last 70 years but behaviour hasn't, unfortunately, so you can't expect the authorities to exert crowd control without the minimum conditions for such. If we want to ward off the thugs and bring wives and children back to the game, the standards have to be improved, particularly with regard to comfort and safety.
That said, those providing the 'product' also have to remember that, although it is a business, it is an entertainment business :o)

so now Stew10 my idiotic new pen pal you seem to be saying banter is wishing tat the club you claim to suport goes out of buisness! My eam the mighty buls came so close to this I cant wish this on any supporter of any club let alone the one the one you claim to support just to prove a point.

Please before you answer consider what you will write so you dont make yourself seem more mercenery/foolish.

#34
When did I say that I supported DundeeFC?

Is there a comprehension issue with you?

Now what was that you said about consider before you write!!?

stew as every post yu have made contains dundee and one says my dundee programmes i thought this was a safe assumption but then after reading your comments i should know beter than to think anytig you say or mention would make sense. Sorry

#36

Easy mistake to make.

Hope you get to the EPL this season. Very entertaining team when I've watched them.

@BLRBrazil, you said "the idea of not having any barriers is absurd - - you can't allow crowds direct access to the pitch." But that's exactly how it is just now...fans do not have barriers or nets or whatever between them and the pitch - that was a Justice Taylor recommendation post-Hillsborough. I think in controlled circumstances we could have terraces, like in Germany.

stew10 - Are you obsessed with Dundee or something? All the admin stuff was on a different blog - and by a different writer!! Give us all a break, eh. Get over it and move on.

Jack, I was lucky enough to have watched a couple of games at Clyde's old Shawfield ground (record attendance 52,000). I thought it was a great park. As I recollect there was a decent stand and the remaining terracing was all covered. The atmosphere was light years ahead of their place at Cumbernauld. On the other hand, I didn't think Muirton generated much atmosphere unless there was 8-9000 or more. I don't feel that Saints have looked back since they moved to McDairmid where 5000 fans can create quite a bit of tension during a good game. Naturally, it has to be said that McDairmid's facilities are a huge improvement on what (little) Muirton had to offer. Another great ground was East Fife's old Bayview Park. I saw a cup-tie there about 30 odd years ago when around 6000 fans made a great game feel like being at a Cup final. Once again though, very little in the way of facilities and certainly nothing comparable to those we enjoy nowadays. Finally, having paid a visit for the first time just a few weeks ago, I have to say that the New Brockville leaves the old Brockville in the shade. All seated, good views, good catering, good stewards, good parking, good atmoshere, good everything.

In reference to the season itself, I think we have to play as much as possible during the good weather. I was at the football last night and it was freeeezing. I can't understand why we shouldn't have a 6 week mid-winter break from say, before Xmas (10th December?) to the end of January? I think the Germans do something similar to this.

#33

People stand at concerts in large numbers, swaying all over the place and moving quite a distance through no want of their own without dying. If 30000 steaming teens can manage it at T in the Park safely, a few thousand can manage it at a football game.

@ 41: I take your point, but I think that there is an essential distinction between the two. A music concert is a positive shared experience - unless the music's lousy or an amp blows; but even then the crowd's emotions are shared. A football match is adversarial and tends to generate a lot of negative emotions that provide a combustible mix, especially if alcohol is added.

New or old ground is irrelevent. Scottish football is dying due to continually falling attendances. It is not just the half empy grounds and no atmosphere it is the product, overpriced and in the middle of freezing Scottish winters is definitely not on, and the punters are showing it more and more by increasingly staying away.

#39

Help ma boab its the Dundee blog polis!

Great article Jack..we have written something similar at Upper90magazine...have a read and see what you think

@ BLRBrazil

The idea of safe standing areas does not mean there would be no barriers. If you look at stadia with these areas, they have a front to the enclosure just like all-seated stands do and only a limited number of people are allowed into the enclosure.

Some German stadia have stands which can cater for both types of fans (those who want to stand vs those who want to sit, though not at the same time). Each row of seats has a frame that allows seats to be locked into an upright position and also acts as a barrier for the fans in the row behind. Fans are allocated a seat number with their ticket. Obviously fans in lower leagues pay at the gate and don't have allocated seats, but with only one row in between each barrier there is no chance of groups being large enough to sway around never mind the room to sway around.