To share or not to share

Last updated : 12 December 2002 By Wishae Arab

Scotland’s bid to host Euro 2008 was pronounced dead in the water this afternoon, and with it seemingly went the prospect of a new stadium in Dundee, shared by the two teams. Or did it?

On the face of it the Dens Park side had more to gain from the project, given the state of both their finances and their stadium. I was in the main stand for the first time ever not so long ago for the under-21 derby match and it’s a shambles. Steps 18 inches deep, poor views of the pitch, and surely a disaster in waiting should a fire break out. And as for the Derry, well it’s in a worse nick than the Shed!


But before we get carried away with our seemingly obligatory dig at our neighbours poor ground it’s perhaps time we had a long hard and objective look at our own, cruelly called “Sticklebrick” by those of a dark blue variety!

Some parts of the ground are undoubtedly quite satisfactory – the George Fox stand is an impressive edifice, but once the surface is scratched there are many faults which ONLY a move to a new and therefore probably shared stadium would resolve.


Let’s forget the taunts to those up the road and look at what UNITED could gain by such a move.

The first one is straightforward – economics. At the moment the entire running costs of each stadium are borne by the individual clubs – rates/heat/light/cleaning are just a few that instantly spring to mind. Even simple things like reception and admin staff are duplicated in each ground, and although efforts have been taken by the Carnegie and now Thompson boards to reduce waste in this area there is no doubt that sharing a stadium would lead to potential savings.


What about the 2 club shops in the George Fox and East Stands? I’ve never been to the one in the GF, but it surely wouldn’t be hard for it to be better than the one in the East Stand, which clearly was built into a convenient space under the stand as an afterthought, rather than with any thoughts of fulfilling a marketing function for the club.


A shared stadium would allow the development of either one large shop shared by both teams (and why not?) or else a decent sized shop at each side of the ground, accessible from outside the stadium so that it’s not only fans in the two stands served at the moment that could make purchases.


How many buses arrive at Tannadice for each home game from outside Dundee? And how many of these people alone, never mind the majority who travel from outwith the city by car, don’t purchase anything because they sit in the top tier of the East stand or the Shed. And how many of those who go into the GF and East stands actually buy anything at all due to the poor facilities available.


One of the regular dee-baiters on the board went off on a tangent by stating that we should invest in the future by looking at youth facilities etc. That’s all very well, but remember that we have poured as a club a staggering SEVEN MILLION pounds IN CASH into our stadium, whereas other clubs have taken out loans for the same purpose.

Other possibilities include the potential for vastly improving the hospitality areas in a shared stadium, the provision of conference facilities and even the potential for a large function room. At the moment one of Dundee’s biggest drawbacks is the lack of a modern conference facility/function suite which can cater for more than 300 people. A shared stadium could provide this facility which would be a great boost for the city as a whole.


I could go on for quite some time looking at other possible benefits of a shared stadium but I doubt anyone will read them so I’ll wind up by stressing that I’ve as many happy memories of the glory years at Tannadice as the next man, and indeed many more than our younger readers. However nostalgia and a dislike of our neighbours should not detract from the objective case that can be made for shared facilities!