North Stand Construction Discussion

Manchester33 said:
Just some points (as a few of you have mentioned 1894):

- the 300 responses was the number of responses we received 2 hours from the poll going live. We posted it because it was clear how the results would go.

- the club wanted us at the meeting so clearly they’re interested in ours and our members views.

- it’s all well and good saying ‘answers will be obvious’, but we wanted ‘facts’ to back up our stances in a formal meeting.

- the clear desire from our membership is to see atmosphere as the top priority when considering the North Stand Expansion.

- our membership reflects thousands of fans. Ranging from young/old, locals/overseas, Seasoncard Holders/fans who have only been once or twice. I get that our campaigns might not reflect what other demographics want - but it’s up to them to create a group and put in the effort we have over the last decade if they feel strongly enough about it. We are serving our members and pushing their views. You can all become members and influence that process.
Click to expand...
 
Dodge said:
Maybe because it's our Club, we are its most invested stakeholders and its just about the most important development we've ever undertaken?
Click to expand...
The point is that the consultation would have to have taken place before the design was completed let alone before work started on site. That particular horse has long since bolted.

The cost implications of design changes during construction are quite severe in cost terms. When I worked in construction consultancy, clients changing the brief after the project was on site, was a real pain and very expensive.

That happened because many clients had little experience of commissioning a project. That is not the case with City who did much the same with the South Stand not so long ago.
 
JGL07 said:
The point is that the consultation would have to have taken place before the design was completed let alone before work started on site. That particular horse has long since bolted.

The cost implications of design changes during construction are quite severe in cost terms. When I worked in construction consultancy, clients changing the brief after the project was on site, was a real pain and very expensive.

That happened because many clients had little experience of commissioning a project. That is not the case with City who did much the same with the South Stand not so long ago.
Click to expand...
I've not said anything about design changes. I simply believe that our supporters should be front and centre of this development. It's not about the design of the new seats, it's who is sat in them.
 
Dodge said:
I've not said anything about design changes. I simply believe that our supporters should be front and centre of this development. It's not about the design of the new seats, it's who is sat in them.
Click to expand...
There will be a mix of ticket prices £1600 at the front GA+ then around £1k with £800 further back. But all City fans.
 
JGL07 said:
The point is that the consultation would have to have taken place before the design was completed let alone before work started on site. That particular horse has long since bolted.

The cost implications of design changes during construction are quite severe in cost terms. When I worked in construction consultancy, clients changing the brief after the project was on site, was a real pain and very expensive.

That happened because many clients had little experience of commissioning a project. That is not the case with City who did much the same with the South Stand not so long ago.
Click to expand...
Safe standing/rail seating is mentioned in the PA. Installing that doesn't need design changes.

I'd be with happy with 1/2, 1/3 or the outer blocks of NSL2 having safe standing/rail seating.

Almost every club has installed or is installing safe standing/rail seating in their home ends.

Yet there's still a possibility City aren't going to install safe standing/rail seating in the new North stand home end, even though they can do that.

If City install 8000 new seats in NSL2 they aren't going to rip them out again to install 8000 safe standing/rail seats.

Like I've said previously. If City do install 8000 seats, good luck to the club and stewards trying to get 8000 fans to sit continually throughout the match in the new home end. That isn't going to happen. And it's going to cause a lot of problems between the fans, stewards and the club.
 
jrb said:
Safe standing/rail seating is mentioned in the PA. Installing that doesn't need design changes.

I'd be with happy with 1/2, 1/3 or the outer blocks of NSL2 having safe standing/rail seating.

Almost every club has installed or is installing safe standing/rail seating in their home ends.

Yet there's still a possibility City aren't going to install safe standing/rail seating in the new North stand home end, even though they can do that.

If City install 8000 new seats in NSL2 they aren't going to rip them out again to install 8000 safe standing/rail seats.

Like I've said previously. If City do install 8000 seats, good luck to the club and stewards trying to get 8000 fans to sit continually throughout the match in the new home end. That isn't going to happen. And it's going to cause a lot of problems between the fans, stewards and the club.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with any of that. But you do underestimate how easy it is to change to safe standing, once the concourses, access, toilets etc can take the volume. And the way these are done the seats, even the GA+ ones, are spaced exactly the same as the typical standing pods.

You are right, better all done at once, but I would bet when the club think there is a need for it, they will do it, the fact they recently installed seats won't even cross their mind.
 
Corky said:
Neither.
Click to expand...
Ok, is it realistic?

My point being more that, according to that, the GA+ will generate only an extra 388k a season. Which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. And as I previously mused, imo the club are not doing it for the money as such, but for a possible number of other reasons.
 
Manchester33 said:
lol, you couldn’t be further off the mark saying this to Alex!
Click to expand...
He is, by some margin, the best CM rep we've had, but if as many of us suspect, the whole thing is a box ticking exercise by the club, then the best thing the reps could do is resign en masse.

The message to the club would be clear; take the fan base seriously or we won't engage with you on your terms.

I supposed what's required is a group like Liverpool's 'Spirit of Shankly' which seems to be independent of the football club but genuinely represents the fans' best interest. As a result it is able to bring pressure on the club while not being beholden to it. I think Celtic have something similar.

Obviously this requires a lot more energy than a keyboard warrior like me could ever muster. But City fans need to understand and recognize that we are the club, and while we will always be grateful to the Sheik and his team, they need to stop taking us for granted and sometimes take our side.
 
Coatigan said:
Ok, is it realistic?

My point being more that, according to that, the GA+ will generate only an extra 388k a season. Which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. And as I previously mused, imo the club are not doing it for the money as such, but for a possible number of other reasons.
Click to expand...
Based on current prices in the most similar areas and the indication it won't be budget like SS3.

The club is split into different businesses in effect, the fact the entire club make £100m, £1b or lose money, doesn't impact of the decisions of those maximising ticket revenue as their job. Things like reclassifying the North stand lower corner blocks as East and West was very petty, earnt the club a few quid, but really cost the fans a lot more relatively.

I know lower tier is high demand from those who buy offsite hospitality and tourists, and can see more fans pushed to the third tiers if this demand increases. It just depends how long City and football remain fashionable.
 
Blue Maverick said:
That seems a lot compared to the price of seating at the top of SSL3
Click to expand...
Not really. Rows A-K in SS3 are £745 full adult price. As the new NS will be level 2 (albeit a huge one) and have vastly better facilities than the basic as it gets SS3 then £800 would be a great price towards the back. The middle and back of SS3 are the cheap areas and I can't see that the club will be offering anything like those prices in NS2
 
Coatigan said:
Don't disagree with any of that. But you do underestimate how easy it is to change to safe standing, once the concourses, access, toilets etc can take the volume. And the way these are done the seats, even the GA+ ones, are spaced exactly the same as the typical standing pods.

You are right, better all done at once, but I would bet when the club think there is a need for it, they will do it, the fact they recently installed seats won't even cross their mind.
Click to expand...

There's need for it now, mate. We would easily fill 8000 safe standing seats. I'd even take 4000 or 3000 safe standing seats across the back of NSL2 as a compromise. That way the club could retain the GA+ seats, which I'd rather they didn't, the ambulant seats, and the more expensive seats between the front and middle of NSL2. I'm still hopeful the club will compromise on the seating layout on NSL2 and include safe standing seats. If they don't I will be very disappointed, but not surprised.
 
jrb said:
There's need for it now, mate. We would easily fill 8000 safe standing seats. I'd even take 4000 or 3000 safe standing seats across the back of NSL2 as a compromise. That way the club could retain the GA+ seats, which I'd rather they didn't, the ambulant seats, and the more expensive seats between the front and middle of NSL2. I'm still hopeful the club will compromise on the seating layout on NSL2 and include safe standing seats. If they don't I will be very disappointed, but not surprised.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but I'm not totally convinced there is at the moment demand for 8000 safe standing seats. Thats about 1 in 5 of current S/C holders, do you think 1 in 5 would want to stand ? Seems a bit high to me.
 
jrb said:
There's need for it now, mate. We would easily fill 8000 safe standing seats. I'd even take 4000 or 3000 safe standing seats across the back of NSL2 as a compromise. That way the club could retain the GA+ seats, which I'd rather they didn't, the ambulant seats, and the more expensive seats between the front and middle of NSL2. I'm still hopeful the club will compromise on the seating layout on NSL2 and include safe standing seats. If they don't I will be very disappointed, but not surprised.
Click to expand...

blueparrot said:
You may be right, but I'm not totally convinced there is at the moment demand for 8000 safe standing seats. Thats about 1 in 5 of current S/C holders, do you think 1 in 5 would want to stand ? Seems a bit high to me.
Click to expand...
The only way 8000 safe standing seats could be filled would be if every currently in one moved and new SCs were issued on the basis that it's safe standing. That would leave all the current safe standing area vacant and requiring filling.

I can't imagine that 8000 existing SC holders would move for that offer at all. There are a significant proportion of older supporters like me who would only move if their current seats became safe standing and then to a seated area.
 
jrb said:
Cpoverview.

Great updates

If possible, on your next update, can you have a low look around the porta cabins and fenced off holding areas to see if the exterior cladding mockup is up yet?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Some major progress going on, it also shows the sheer scale of the expansion.
 
cpoverview said:
This mornings latest Recording
Click to expand...

Very informative thanks.

You were asking the other week what else people would like to see especially.

As well as the building updates a few months ago you had a quick look at a semi disused railway line , could you have a slightly wider pan round to see if we can work out it's route just to see the possibilities.
Another thing that's hard to tell with the naked eye is the rough ground to the right of the blue car park as you look towards the ground ,think it has a bit of a drop might be interesting to fly over thar and see what the possibilities were for linking up with any roads exits oe even an extra link etc.
 
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