Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I have a feeling some on here are getting carried away with the potential demand for safe standing. I'm happy for safe standing to be introduced into part of the revamped North Stand and maybe in part of the South Stand but personally I don't want to stand at matches any more and I suspect many other current seasoncard holders would feel the same. I moved into 316 when SS3 opened having previously been in ES3 & before that the Family Stand. I'm very happy with my current seat and would have no intention of moving. The atmosphere in SS3 is probably the best in the stadium in my view, although I reckon it would be enhanced by a vocal North Stand to bounce off.

The idea that the entire revamped North Stand would be taken up by safe standing isn't happening in my opinion. The entire first tier and a bit at the top of the upper tier maybe. As for the South Stand, maybe the bottom tier and a bit at the back of the third tier.

Safe standing needs to be affordable, also aimed at the younger working class lads and lasses who will create an atmosphere.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Safe standing needs to be affordable, also aimed at the younger working class lads and lasses who will create an atmosphere.

I've no problem with that...I'm merely offering the opinion that some on here have suddenly got unrealistic expectations about how much safe standing there MIGHT be. Bear in mind it's currently not allowed and I wouldn't be overly surprised if the ongoing review came to the conclusion that it shouldn't be in the future. The status quo is an easy out for the government.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I've no problem with that...I'm merely offering the opinion that some on here have suddenly got unrealistic expectations about how much safe standing there MIGHT be. Bear in mind it's currently not allowed and I wouldn't be overly surprised if the ongoing review came to the conclusion that it shouldn't be in the future. The status quo is an easy out for the government.

I agree think it will be a limited introduction at least to begin with.

 

[Marvin]

Safe standing is what a lot of people have been campaigning for over the years and I am sure the club or the organisers are going to get bombarded with this suggestion, but I am not keen either. It's seen as a panacea, a throw-back to the 70's but I think it's just the South stand minus a little comfort. I think people will be disappointed. What people vote for is not necessarily the best option.

I would prefer if City just went for lowest possible priced seating, and make it all season ticketed to keep the ground full. We'd all like young people to make the crowd livelier but the priority is a full ground

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Great news they are now on the road to expanding the ground. Just hope the owners and the council try and sort out some better transport links.

 

[jrb]

6 blocks in SS lower are standing. 3 blocks in the Kippax corner are standing. That’s the whole lower tier of the NS in the future The rest of the stadium can sit.

If City make the NS expansion all safe standing, and offer City fans cheap,safe standing season tickets, they will fly out.

 

[jrb]

As other posters have said what we need more then anything is a proper home end. No away fans and a place where the singers can go. Also affordable tickets.

Having both tier one and a big tier two north standing would be ideal. Two singing Ends behind the goals. It’s what our stadium and fan base have been missing !

We are one of the only clubs without a home end. We’ve gone from the kippax to the embarrassment we have now. We need to finally sort this out while we can. We as fans, the 1894 group need to be pushing the club on this.

They are. But we need the majority of City fans to be for this so the club take it forward.

I think they will.

It will boil down to what options and configuration they pick.

Personally I’d like to see 2 ends with safe standing. Both lower tiers. Or 1 Full NS, both tiers, of safe standing.

 

[level_two]

The main benefit for standing is that you can come along with your mates for a one off and guarantee that you will all be stood together.

People do what their mates do and with all seated stadia it's virtually impossible to get 5 seats together.

Add to that that someone could tag along to a group as well. They probably wouldn't go if they had to sit separate.

Of course here price is important. I think price squeezing is a side effect of FFP as clubs are trying to maximize every revenue stream. But they need to consider that one day the young will be old and the old will be gone.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Safe standing is what a lot of people have been campaigning for over the years and I am sure the club or the organisers are going to get bombarded with this suggestion, but I am not keen either. It's seen as a panacea, a throw-back to the 70's but I think it's just the South stand minus a little comfort. I think people will be disappointed. What people vote for is not necessarily the best option.

I would prefer if City just went for lowest possible priced seating, and make it all season ticketed to keep the ground full. We'd all like young people to make the crowd livelier but the priority is a full ground

There was still standing into the 90's far more enjoyable experience than sitting on your arse imo. Did you ever stand on the Kippax?

 

[Marvin]

The main benefit for standing is that you can come along with your mates for a one off and guarantee that you will all be stood together.

People do what their mates do and with all seated stadia it's virtually impossible to get 5 seats together.

Add to that that someone could tag along to a group as well. They probably wouldn't go if they had to sit separate.

Of course here price is important. I think price squeezing is a side effect of FFP as clubs are trying to maximize every revenue stream. But they need to consider that one day the young will be old and the old will be gone.

Unfortunately you can't have everything. If we leave 10,000 seats on an unreserved basis they'd be empty for some games and that's worse.

 

[Marvin]

There was still standing into the 90's far more enjoyable experience than sitting on your arse imo. Did you ever stand on the Kippax?

Of course I did. Next to the away fans. We've got what is proposed already only better because there's a seat there.

This is the problem with the rail seating. Those who want it think it's the terrace coming back. It isn't. What I liked about the Kippax is never coming back

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

6 blocks in SS lower are standing. 3 blocks in the Kippax corner are standing. That’s the whole lower tier of the NS in the future The rest of the stadium can sit.

If City make the NS expansion all safe standing, and offer City fans cheap,safe standing season tickets, they will fly out.

Do you really think the club would get permission to create an 8000 rail seat end when we have had government enforcing all seater stadia for decades?

It's not happening. A limited trial is far more realistic.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Of course I did. Next to the away fans. We've got what is proposed already only better because there's a seat there.

This is the problem with the rail seating. Those who want it think it's the terrace coming back. It isn't. What I liked about the Kippax is never coming back

Why's it better to have a seat there? And I don't believe anyone really thinks the old terrace's are coming back.

 

[jrb]

If the expanded NS is all safe standing, that still leaves 3 stands with seating. Roughly 45,000 seats. 15,000 safe standing seats. 3000 away seats. 63,000 seats. There will be plenty of seats and choice for City fans who would prefer to sit.(in peace and quiet)

 

[jrb]

Do you really think the club would get permission to create an 8000 rail seat end when we have had government enforcing all seater stadia for decades?

It's not happening. A limited trial is far more realistic.

You obviously know more than the club and other people who have been campaigning for safe standing. Can you tell us your source? The PL clubs have voted for safe standing. The wheels are now firmly in motion. The Government and the new Minister for Sport may try and stall the safe standing debate with more reports, etc, but it will happen. Fans, clubs, and the PL are now on-board. Tracey Crouch, the previous Minister of Sport, who did her best to oppose safe standing, and blocked it, resigned at the beginning of November.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

You obviously know more than the club and other people who have been campaigning for safe standing. Can you tell us your source? The PL clubs have voted for safe standing. The wheels are now firmly in motion. The Government and the new Minister for Sport may try and stall the safe standing debate with more reports, etc, but it will happen. Fans, clubs, and the PL are now on-board. Tracey Crouch, the previous Minister of Sport, who did her best to oppose safe standing, and blocked it, resigned at the beginning of November.

It's an opinion. Yours is different....these things happen.

 

[jrb]

It's an opinion. Yours is different....these things happen.

We’ll see.

 

[jrb]

Rail seating options from the email. Screen grabbed.

My first thoughts were that these safe standing season ticket prices *aren’t value for money*, and they won’t attract new fans. They are pretty much on par with what we are already paying. The general consensus is that safe standing seats and season tickets should be cheaper than normal seats and season tickets. Maybe the club are hoping and expecting that the novelty of safe standing will be enough for the fans to part with their money at those prices? Those aren’t. I’m concerned that City aren’t listening again to what the fans want. And are putting profit and revenue before a full,stadium and cheaper season tickets.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

We’ll see.

I would be happy if you are right but with the proviso that my seat stays as it is.

 

[jrb]

I would be happy if you are right but with the proviso that my seat stays as it is.

In the NS or SS?