North Stand expansion - seating, ticketing etc

[wearethesouthstand]

agree with the standing bit, better off starting small and see how it goes then expand if demand and legislation permits. knowing the authorities we'd build it and then they'd change the rules to say only 10% of each area could be standing.

No clarification on how a standing area would be increased when you already have the central bits prioritised for padded seats

 

[BerkshireBlue]

No clarification on how a standing area would be increased when you already have the central bits prioritised for padded seats

why would you need clarification for something that might not happen if things change anyway

 

[uwerosler28]

There’s always a chance people will still go , we are not “controlling the singing” there’s many fans out there who are not involved with us who do their own thing who like to sing. You’d hope if enough people the right sort if people get into the corner bits they may just be loud enough to reach the other end - hardly schalke but a start.

As it stands we see the “anchor tenants” ploy as a way to justify their plans by getting a fans group on board and the club the saying well they back it - but what are they actually offering - we are gonna put some of you over there in that corner some of you over there in the other corner. A load of padded seats In between and various bars and corporate areas. And no information on prices. And we are gonna force out hundreds of people and then fans will blame you for that rather than us as they will just think you have demanded a section over there. Ok you ok to make the best of it from there.

I think flexi gold obsession for the club could undo that stand. You’ll have a few rows of seats at the front then empty seats behind it visible on tv as they won’t be able to shift the individual match tickets from flexi turns as they will be priced too high. Not our problem. Current model is divert tickets to viagogo. There’s no commitment to atmosphere from the club

The only way to move on from that paranoid mind set is to actually engage with the club and have a conversation , like you state you don't actually know what they are offering or at what price, but have held the total of 1 maybe 2 conversations that walked away,

 

[pride in battle]

Atmosphere in the ground is also up to everyone not just SS114 to 118 and 109 to 111.

119 is lively :)

 

[Manchester33]

How many season tickets holders do 1894 have? is this all a mute point if individuals are expecting 1894 to fill the 3000 safe standing areas but only have 500 members? , are you being asked to do something that is actually impossible anyway ?

We don't publicise our membership figures, it's more than enough to fill the 3k safe standing - but not everyone would go (especially given the lack of clarity around pricing + the lack of enthusiasm behind the idea of an atmospheric home end from the club- IMO).

Even having said that, and understanding that 1894 would have a loud voice in encouraging people to relocate to a new potential singing section, the onus is on the club here. It's their job to convince fans that the North Stand would be an atmospheric end, with fair pricing/more rail seats/positioning of GA+ seats etc.

They would have a much easier time convincing fans with their actions, rather than relying on a volunteer run organisation to ask fans to go.

My honest assessment is that the North Stand Expansion project only exists to increase both match day and non-match day stadium revenue. It's really difficult to make a good atmospheric end when that isn't the main goal - and that's the problem (or not depending on what your priorities are). It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's an afterthought.

 

[jrb]

Let's see what the pricing will be on NSL2, because it's going to be all over the place.

GA+ seating at the front.
GA seating in the middle.
Safe standing seating at the back and along the sides.
Hotel packages and priority seating somewhere on NSL2.
Youth prices?
Family prices?
Match category prices.
Official ticket touting website prices.
Etc.

 

[pride in battle]

We don't publicise our membership figures, it's more than enough to fill the 3k safe standing - but not everyone would go (especially given the lack of clarity around pricing + the lack of enthusiasm behind the idea of an atmospheric home end from the club- IMO).

Even having said that, and understanding that 1894 would have a loud voice in encouraging people to relocate to a new potential singing section, the onus is on the club here. It's their job to convince fans that the North Stand would be an atmospheric end, with fair pricing/more rail seats/positioning of GA+ seats etc.

They would have a much easier time convincing fans with their actions, rather than relying on a volunteer run organisation to ask fans to go.

My honest assessment is that the North Stand Expansion project only exists to increase both match day and non-match day stadium revenue. It's really difficult to make a good atmospheric end when that isn't the main goal - and that's the problem (or not depending on what your priorities are). It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's an afterthought.

So why have the club installed safe standing, the roof designed for atmosphere ? At the end of the day it's fans who dictate the atmosphere, it doesn't have to be the club, 1894 should be pushing it..."cut your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind...

 

[Coatigan]

I may be misunderstanding, are you saying its always been at the front of the new section (row 16 of the new stand) and not at the front of the whole tier eg row 1 of the current 2nd tier

No, it has always been at the front of the new whole tier in all the publicly available drawings (fact) and the new wording in yesterday's statement says the same (opinion).

I.e 'The start of the new expanded section' to me is the rows where it always was, and where the bar is, not the rows of the bolt-on bit.

I am open to the possibility that may change, but at the moment there is nothing imo there to suggest that.

The no seats needing moved is indeed a confusing bit, which I noted yesterday. But between multiple drawings of a building currently being built, and an odd line in a statement, I'm going with the drawings.

I understand how HelloCity has got to his conclusion, I have also noted that. It is a guess though (fact), and he has (opinion) got it wrong on that one. Maybe not on the City Hall one.

Even if that block of GA+ seats Was to move, it could only move within that bank and not as high up as the new section, because the access to the bar then wouldn't be there.

The city hall additional hospitality seating, again I get why that conclusion is there to be made from the wording. I hope that's not the case, but I see the assumption too. Either way, we can't really claim it as fact yet that those seats will be further GA+.

To be clear, I am reading it like that not because 'it doesn't line up with my expectations' as HC put it, but because it doesn't line up with what we know and is factual in the publicly available information and drawings.

Does that make sense mate?

 

[Manchester33]

The only way to move on from that paranoid mind set is to actually engage with the club and have a conversation , like you state you don't actually know what they are offering or at what price, but have held the total of 1 maybe 2 conversations that walked away,

I was in 3 meetings with the club specifically about the NS. I signed an NDA so I'm limited in what I can share. We never walked away - we specifically said in statements (if you care to read them) that our door remains open for further discussion with the club.

Ultimately, 1894 will not flog a dead horse. We will not encourage people to go to create a singing section where atmosphere has been treated as an afterthought. That's not to say we would try (or want) to stop people making their own mind up. We just won't put our volunteered time and effort into a doomed project that is revenue driven.

Asking for a 3 year plan on pricing is a bare minimum if we're going to ask someone to move their seasoncard they might have had for 20+ years.

 

[Manchester33]

So why have the club installed safe standing, the roof designed for atmosphere ? At the end of the day it's fans who dictate the atmosphere, it doesn't have to be the club, 1894 should be pushing it..."cut your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind...

It's down to opinions. My opinion on the matter is different to yours. You might see that section as an atmospheric home end - I see it as an opportunity for the club to drive revenue.

It's fine that we disagree. There are 3k rail seats there for anyone who wants to go and make a success of it (and I genuinely would love that to happen). The success of the North Stand (in terms of improving the atmosphere) is the club's responsibility, not 1894's.

 

[NJMCFC184]

We probably wouldn't get 8000 wanting to stand ?

Already have

 

[wearethesouthstand]

why would you need clarification for something that might not happen if things change anyway

Because the club put it in their statement.

3000 safe standing which could be increased in the future.

So we quierrd how would that work given the current plans you have already.

Radio silence.

It was khaldoon who trumpeted the the idea of a blue wall not any fan group, we’ve mailed in plenty of questions asking for detail as we were taking them at face value- even though the 3000 was an afterthought by the club at the final meeting because we asked for more if they really wanted to sell it as a “atmospheric end”. Perhaps they are things they have not even thought about seriously themselves.

The goalposts have moved as we go along. Extra sections added all the time. You’re not anchored tenants if you are shoved to the back 6-7 rows of a stand behind a load of GA+ seating

 

[jrb]

Don't start moaning when the stand sized tifo is hung from the tifo mechanism and blocks the view of the whole pitch as the teams come out on to the pitch. ;-)

 

[pride in battle]

I was in 3 meetings with the club specifically about the NS. I signed an NDA so I'm limited in what I can share. We never walked away - we specifically said in statements (if you care to read them) that our door remains open for further discussion with the club.

Ultimately, 1894 will not flog a dead horse. We will not encourage people to go to create a singing section where atmosphere has been treated as an afterthought. That's not to say we would try (or want) to stop people making their own mind up. We just won't put our volunteered time and effort into a doomed project that is revenue driven.

Asking for a 3 year plan on pricing is a bare minimum if we're going to ask someone to move their seasoncard they might have had for 20+ years.

This is why it could fail...it's like you all have this massive chip on your shoulders and refuse to budge, blaming the club, the club have said here is 3000 standing, i get the price issue but surely 1894 could have said yes providing the price is matched from the south stand, and i think it will.

 

[blueparrot]

No clarification on how a standing area would be increased when you already have the central bits prioritised for padded seats

There is a big gap between the end of the rail seating and the padded seats, it would be fairly easy to expand rail seating ,but also there is nothing to say the GA+ can't be rail seating with a dedicated bar area, unlikely but not impossible.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Has something been announced over the last couple of days and if so is there a summary if it? There seems to be a lot of ling posts from people who tbf have a much greater grasp of detail than I do. Any summary would be much appreciated

 

[wearethesouthstand]

The only way to move on from that paranoid mind set is to actually engage with the club and have a conversation , like you state you don't actually know what they are offering or at what price, but have held the total of 1 maybe 2 conversations that walked away,

We got off our arses 13 years ago and turned up for every meeting they asked for.

We also survey with information from thousands of fans, they read it but also a lot of the time don’t respond.

We’ve never not engaged with the club.

We don’t have to go along with plans that are flawed and as you can see are deeply unpopular.

Maybe if we just agreed with everything they said they’d meet us more. If there’s only 2 meetings that’s because they only want to do 2 meetings with us.

They meet others more regularly.

 

[pride in battle]

It's down to opinions. My opinion on the matter is different to yours. You might see that section as an atmospheric home end - I see it as an opportunity for the club to drive revenue.

It's fine that we disagree. There are 3k rail seats there for anyone who wants to go and make a success of it (and I genuinely would love that to happen). The success of the North Stand (in terms of improving the atmosphere) is the club's responsibility, not 1894's.

You could say it's both coming together to get the right outcome :)

 

[bluesmith]

No, it has always been at the front of the new whole tier in all the publicly available drawings (fact) and the new wording in yesterday's statement says the same (opinion).

I.e 'The start of the new expanded section' to me is the rows where it always was, and where the bar is, not the rows of the bolt-on bit.

I am open to the possibility that may change, but at the moment there is nothing imo there to suggest that.

The no seats needing moved is indeed a confusing bit, which I noted yesterday. But between multiple drawings of a building currently being built, and an odd line in a statement, I'm going with the drawings.

I understand how HelloCity has got to his conclusion, I have also noted that. It is a guess though (fact), and he has (opinion) got it wrong on that one. Maybe not on the City Hall one.

Even if that block of GA+ seats Was to move, it could only move within that bank and not as high up as the new section, because the access to the bar then wouldn't be there.

The city hall additional hospitality seating, again I get why that conclusion is there to be made from the wording. I hope that's not the case, but I see the assumption too. Either way, we can't really claim it as fact yet that those seats will be further GA+.

To be clear, I am reading it like that not because 'it doesn't line up with my expectations' as HC put it, but because it doesn't line up with what we know and is factual in the publicly available information and drawings.

Does that make sense mate?

The no seats removing isn't confusing. It can only be either true or false. The fact they have made this statement means to me it has to be believed.

If its wrong it is an almighty fuck up from City in my opinion. Imagine being told your seat is safe and you won't be moved to then months later find out it isn't true and you need to move.

 

[wearethesouthstand]

There is a big gap between the end of the rail seating and the padded seats, it would be fairly easy to expand rail seating ,but also there is nothing to say the GA+ can't be rail seating with a dedicated bar area, unlikely but not impossible.

We shouldn’t be at this stage of the process and still guessing. They could have laid everything out in total detail prices people moving etc in one go. But it’s drip feed to try and do damage limitation for criticism