Okay, the dust is starting to settle, so now is the time for the fans to make themselves heard. However you do it, get the message across that we do not want a return to that dump at Firhill. No wonder the crowds were dropping, it is like watching rugby by remote control such is the distance between to few loyal fans and the players running around in the empty almost silent barn.

Anniesland is to small and even worse than Hughenden and Firhill for access. The obvious answer is Hughenden! Towards the end of last season, the crowds were pouring down the street in the Spring evenings, increasing with every game - WHY? - ATMOSPHERE!

Firhill has no atmosphere, we are treated like an inconvenience by the stewards, and it is actually feels colder having a pint inside at Firhill, than it did outside at Hughenden.

So come on all you Warriors fans, lets push hard to get Glasgow back where they belong for the benefit of the players and the fans. Give us all a home to be proud of and let's get rid of this gypsie rugby...I for one will not be putting my hand in my pocket for a season ticket for my son and I at Firhill. Let's get back to allocated seats with a good view and a settled environment.

I am sure the people who have kept Thistle and Firhill alive will be thrilled by your comments re a dump. Jim, maybe you can tell us all what you have put into Scottish sport- football or rugby.

Your comments re Old Anniesland are ill informed. Of course it is cannot meet all your aspirations. It is funded by clubs and a school by people who for generations have put in work and put their hand in their pockets to keep the exercise afloat like most clubs in Scotland.

Wise up Jim, get your own ground under your own steam without our SRU subsidy and see how hard it is and see how far you get.

I think it a bit unfair to describe Firhill as a dump.I liked some aspects of Hughenden and prefer it to Anniesland on balance. I wish we could get somewhere settled and somewhere with decent facilities for the players. I think the chopping and changing of both venue and match times have caused the decline in support.Perfomances and results have swung from really encouraging to dire - not surprising really given our circumstances.

My input into sport in Scotland, albeit significant in terms of time and money, is not up for debate, nor is yours. My observations are as a paying customer. If you re-read my observations, you will note that my comment on Anniesland refers to size and access, there is no criticism, written or implied, aimed at the Club or School, however the fact remains, it is not Thomon Park, it is not Donnybrook or the RDS, it is not Ravenhill to illustrate but three close at hand examples of the types of places we should aspire to. Face it, Hughenden is the nearest we have to a propoer rugby ground of any quality and atmosphere. Firhill is fine for Thistle Fans, steeped in tradition, but as paying customers, and by that I mean the Pro-Team as much as the Fans, it does not deliver the right quality of service.

Hughenden is the only obvious answer, it provides a good product and generated increases in crowd numbers, Firhill on the other hand has seen a steady decline in numbers for various reasons, not least the disconnect between the crowd and the team. An ideal world of a community funded stadium as enjoyed by teams like USAP, Toulouse, Clermont et al, we will not see, so what are the options, I would opine that we have only one in the short to medium term if the desire is to grow the game.

Jim

You're correct on several things but I can't agree with the overall point you make. You're correct that Firhill and Anniesland aren't like Donnybrook or Ravenhill and that is something we should aspire to but neither is Hughenden and it never will be. If the club is to grow (and we all hope in the future it does) they need to be at a ground which can expand as well. Hughenden can't do that. The Warriors would always be using someone else's ground, ie Hillhead/Jordanhill, so any improvements to the ground couldn't happen without their say so.

Even if Hillhead gave up the ground, which they never would, there's no room to do anything. So basically you're stuck with an antiquated ground which is too cramped that there is no room to improve it.

There is also the problem with the pitch. Many of the players hated playing on it especially when it was wet and it degenerated into a bog. How can the product be right when at times it wasn't so much rugby that was being played but mud wrestling.

So there are no descent rugby grounds in the city which is why I favour, if it happens, Scotstoun. As I understand it the Warriors will have a major voice in the re-development of the stadium and would use it, not only as their home ground but also their base with the admin and training being carried out there. If the rugby club and supporters club are able to voice their opinions and if they are taken into account when the redevelopment takes place then I think this would be an ideal ground and one we could all be proud of.

David
You are right to an extent. Scotstoun always was and will always be will be a compromise-- "stade municipal".

You will have to get into bed with athletics- thats just the way it is. In fact, athletics has more of a claim on historical grounds than rugby with no disrepect to Hyndland and the other rugby clubs including some who now play at Anniesland that have graced Scotstoun.
The ground was originally owned by the West of Scotland Agricultural Society hence the name Showgrounds you can still see the stable walls down Danes Drive and not so long ago all other sports had to stand down each year for the annual horse show.
As far as timescales are concerned-- how about say 2011-- allowing for slippage in Glasgow CC's Capital programme