North Stand expansion - seating, ticketing etc

M18CTID said:
Anyone can pick out a tweet in isolation. Funny how nobody ever mentions the many tweets from 1894 that have defended the club to the hilt on the charges AND the APT case, the latter of which saw 1894 go to town on that **** Ian Byrne following his utterly disgraceful attack on both club and fans in the Liverpool Echo back in June. Not to mention 1894 taking serious umbrage with the FSA motion around the APT rules which was put forward by, yes you've guessed it, that twat Byrne amongst other people.
Click to expand...
All good things and a great example of the important things 1894 have done for all supporters, but it only takes 1 or 2 snide posts to lose any goodwill from City.

My point is for a supporters group to be taken seriously you need to represent your members - you can’t have loose cannon posts on social media representing the options of one supporter.

I read that post on the kit launch day and thought this is mental - you are trying to be partners with City’s decision makers yet turn into Goldbridge at the most important time. Now it appears you are outside of negotiations.
 
M18CTID said:
Surely if the club are serious about increasing it if demand allows then they can gauge interest in it by simply polling all season ticket holders and members?
Click to expand...
Think that would be a good idea now 1894 have issued the statement.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
I reckon 1894 will be now out of any further discussions with the club regarding the NS as clearly their ideas and demands are so far away from what the club has already proposed. It will be 3000 safe standing seats at the back of the new stand and that's it. It won't be moved to the front and it won't be increased to 7000.

The club has a statutory duty to engage with supporters via CM and we all know that it is essentially a box ticking exercise with no major wins by CM changing policies. I wouldn't expect any major push back from CM re 3000 rail seats as it is a reasonable amount if you accept that the club wants to make a return on its investment. The club has no requirement to engage with 1894 so they won't on this subject from now on.
Click to expand...

The only thing I don't get there, is why you think the club can only make a return in its investment if there is less rail seating. Do you think people wouldn't go for rail seating but would for conventional seats? In which case their approach to see if there is more demand before committing isn't that mad.
 
jrb said:
TBH it didn't matter how far 1894 or the CMRs pushed the club, the club were only ever going to go so far.

From the point of view of putting ideas and suggestions forward to the club during the meetings, there was nothing wrong with that.

The club would have taken those ideas and suggestions away, discussed them, and gone no, yes, maybe?
Click to expand...

Which if true then makes your earlier point about there being no need for NDAs 'secrecy' etc a bit redundant, right.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
All good things and a great example of the important things 1894 have done for all supporters, but it only takes 1 or 2 snide posts to lose any goodwill from City.

My point is for a supporters group to be taken seriously you need to represent your members - you can’t have loose cannon posts on social media representing the options of one supporter.

I read that post on the kit launch day and thought this is mental - you are trying to be partners with City’s decision makers yet turn into Goldbridge at the most important time. Now it appears you are outside of negotiations.
Click to expand...
I think you're overreacting to that tweet to be honest. City have long since known that 1894 doesn't agree with everything they do (and vice versa), yet they still work with us. Maybe the tweet wasn't worded very diplomatically but the basic point was that we shouldn't have been wearing that kit in a home game which is something many fans were saying.
 
blueparrot said:
We still don't know how far they will go 3000 with option to increase with demand. That may be 4000 it may be 5000 we don't know,but by saying the red line is 7/8000 it makes trying to work with 1894 pointless.Leaving it up to other fans to take up those 3000 and if that happens see what it get increased to.
Click to expand...
7/8000, is btw the entirety of the new addition. They basically set out that all of the new addition should be standing, one type of supporter, one type of offering.

That is as valid a take as any, but it completely disregards variety of fan base, needs, profile etc. I don't think it was ever going to stick, that one.
 
M18CTID said:
Ignoring red lines for a moment, I'd be interested to know what the club would do if demand for the safe standing seats was high. Would they be looking to increase it before the stand opened or would they stick with the initial 3000 and wait a season or two before increasing it?
Click to expand...

People were so convinced they wouldn't introduce any at all, before the stand opened, or after. When I argued that they might not, but that the option was very much there the way it is designed, people shot it down.

I think it is a much easier change than people realise, in this format. It can happen in any given off season after the stand is built, or any time between now and then. If the club think they see the demand for it, obviously.
 
FFS I've just read the 1894 statment on this. This is about engagement and influence, not writing a whole impossible list of demands and backing yourselves into a corner like Teresa May because they can't be granted.

Piss poor negotation, especially as you'd already been granted the number one objective: "Anchor Tenants".
 
Coatigan said:
The only thing I don't get there, is why you think the club can only make a return in its investment if there is less rail seating. Do you think people wouldn't go for rail seating but would for conventional seats? In which case their approach to see if there is more demand before committing isn't that mad.
Click to expand...
The caveat with rail seating at least from reading posts on here by people who might consider moving is cost. The new NS is a premium offer compared to the SS so I'm not expecting comparable pricing. Also people seem to be ignoring that the front section of it is premium as it's close to the pitch L2. Maybe pricing at the back could be closer to what many on here would wish for.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The caveat with rail seating at least from reading posts on here by people who might consider moving is cost. The new NS is a premium offer compared to the SS so I'm not expecting comparable pricing. Also people seem to be ignoring that the front section of it is premium as it's close to the pitch L2. Maybe pricing at the back could be closer to what many on here would wish for.
Click to expand...
The back half of this stand is the key to its success or failure.
 
jrb said:
TBH it didn't matter how far 1894 or the CMRs pushed the club, the club were only ever going to go so far.

From the point of view of putting ideas and suggestions forward to the club during the meetings, there was nothing wrong with that.

The club would have taken those ideas and suggestions away, discussed them, and gone no, yes, maybe?
Click to expand...
1894 have cut off their nose to spite their face...
 
Prophet of Doom said:
All good things and a great example of the important things 1894 have done for all supporters, but it only takes 1 or 2 snide posts to lose any goodwill from City.

My point is for a supporters group to be taken seriously you need to represent your members - you can’t have loose cannon posts on social media representing the options of one supporter.

I read that post on the kit launch day and thought this is mental - you are trying to be partners with City’s decision makers yet turn into Goldbridge at the most important time. Now it appears you are outside of negotiations.
Click to expand...

It would equally be unprofessional of the club, to reduce its engagement with the group, over a snide tweet on something else imo.

If finding a middle ground has indeed hit a bump, imo it will be in large part to how the 1894 have approached this, and how inflexible they have, at least in public, appeared. And while they say 'their door is open', what precedes it says otherwise. Or at least that it is open only for exactly what they want and no less.

And that makes it hard to both compromise, or even support as a stance.

Before people get upset over this, please do consider that as a possible optic, intended or not.
 
M18CTID said:
Surely if the club are serious about increasing it if demand allows then they can gauge interest in it by simply polling all season ticket holders and members?
Click to expand...

Agree. They could potentially even extend it to the reported waiting lists they would likely have details for.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
The problem with 1894 is that one minute they want to be taken seriously as a group representing supporters with lengthy ‘official statements’, the next they are posting Goldbridge style snide comments about City on their social media.

Surely if you want to be taken seriously by City they need to show they are professional and represent their members.

I’ve no idea how the group is organised but it was summed up by their social media post slagging off the Noel Gallagher 4th kit on release day as shit. Why any grown man would be arsed about a kit that would be worn once in a marketing campaign linked to the biggest ever band reunion ticket sale is head scratching to me - yet whoever controls the Twitter site for 1894 wrote a snide post on launch day that it’s shit.

Was that the official line from 1894 or the sole voice of whichever kid was controlling the 1894 Twitter page that day ?

I’ve no interest in defending City as I’m sure they ain’t interested in any consultation and will do what they want, but if 1894 had any ideas of being partners with the decision makers at City on what to do with the new £300m investment i would imagine they need to show they represent their members and are not some loose cannon posting the first thing that comes into their head.
Click to expand...
They have come across as very arrogant and aloof, whoever is in charge needs to get a grip.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
This is probably where the club and the fans are not on the same page.

The fans want cheap tickets and atmosphere. The club are building a shiny new stand at significant cost and want (need) a return to justify the cost.
Click to expand...
Personally I'm sure the club can recoup the cost of the stand by making significant offerings in other parts of the stadium.

Don't shoot me but wasn't one suggestion that all of level 2 (besides NS) be made into padded seats similar to Wembley?
 
pride in battle said:
They have come across as very arrogant and aloof, whoever is in charge needs to get a grip.
Click to expand...
You don’t like 1894… we get it!

Not going to please everyone. We do things a certain way - based on 10 years experience of doing what we do.

We are accountable to our members and use their views to form our stances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top