Will 1894 be pushing to make SSL3 all safe standing?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
North Stand expansion - seating, ticketing etc
- Thread starter jrb
- Start date
I'm not really here
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 1,137
- Team supported
- City
At least we can all agree that pricing is the main sticking point here.I'm in SS level 2 and honestly, sometimes when we're singing, I think, aren't they singing down there? We just can't hear you. And you probably can't hear us. It's just the acoustics of that end. I don't much want to relocate, to be honest. I like the lads around me (that's valuable) and the view from the seat is just perfect. But if there's a big singing section in the north, I'd think about it. It'd certainly be much handier for getting the tram back into town. I nearly always walk it.
Now, the price of the season card is another problem, admittedly. I'll keep my powder dry on that one.
I intend to move to NS2 from SS1 as long as the price matches my current ST seat, I am prepared to pay a little bit more, just have to wait and see.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Will 1894 be pushing to make SSL3 all safe standing?
Since people signed up to a tier with seating, there were be thousands in there who don't want to stand.
I think there's why there is a push for a bigger safe standing section in the north stand expansion because it will stop future upheaval than if they were to go with seats as a starting point.
The club seem reluctant to move people about too much unless it's for new premium or corporate seats.
I'm not really here
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 1,137
- Team supported
- City
It won't happen mate.Will 1894 be pushing to make SSL3 all safe standing?
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,860
We have asked the club to review the standing situation in SSL3. We haven't formed an official stance on whether the entirety of L3 should be rail seating or just sections towards the back (where persistent standing is more prevalent currently).Will 1894 be pushing to make SSL3 all safe standing?
The main purpose is to improve safety and a secondary benefit is improving the atmosphere.
Most people stand from row M back in the 2 blocks near the away fans anywayWe have asked the club to review the standing situation in SSL3. We haven't formed an official stance on whether the entirety of L3 should be rail seating or just sections towards the back (where persistent standing is more prevalent currently).
The main purpose is to improve safety and a secondary benefit is improving the atmosphere.
Cheadle_hulmeBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 17,023
If any section needs safe standing it’s block 109. It’s actually quite unsafe as it currently is.
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,860
There's a good chance that 'some' rail seating will be introduced into Level 3 (similar to the rail seating in the away section of Level 3).It won't happen mate.
The Stadium Safety Advisory Group + Local Council will want to ensure the stadium is safe, and as there is persistent standing they will pressure the club to introduce rail seating up there.
I imagine that might be why the club haven't gone with more rail seats in NSL2 (because their logic is there will be 4k rails in SSL1, 3k rails in NSL2 + Xk rails in SSL3). They will want to keep the % of rail seats low (or at least on par with other clubs (like Chelsea, United, and Liverpool) as it affects ticket prices (and, by default, match-day revenue).
A scenario that 'could' happen is the club opened NSL2 with say, 5k rail seats. Then the SSAG + LC force them to add 3k in SSL3. The club has 12k rail seats which they can't justify selling for as much as normal seats.
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,860
I doubt there's any hope for this. More likely that fans will be encouraged to sit there more vigorously after NSL2 completed (this is all my hunch rather than based on any facts).If any section needs safe standing it’s block 109. It’s actually quite unsafe as it currently is.
Thanks for the replies.There's a good chance that 'some' rail seating will be introduced into Level 3 (similar to the rail seating in the away section of Level 3).
The Stadium Safety Advisory Group + Local Council will want to ensure the stadium is safe, and as there is persistent standing they will pressure the club to introduce rail seating up there.
I imagine that might be why the club haven't gone with more rail seats in NSL2 (because their logic is there will be 4k rails in SSL1, 3k rails in NSL2 + Xk rails in SSL3). They will want to keep the % of rail seats low (or at least on par with other clubs (like Chelsea, United, and Liverpool) as it affects ticket prices (and, by default, match-day revenue).
A scenario that 'could' happen is the club opened NSL2 with say, 5k rail seats. Then the SSAG + LC force them to add 3k in SSL3. The club has 12k rail seats which they can't justify selling for as much as normal seats.
Could 1894 push for all Safe Standing in SSl3 if they don’t get what they want in NSL2? It seems like a good alternative. Especially with those unhappy with the introduction of safe standing in SSL3 able to relocate more easily (given first chance) and to similar seats at the other end of the ground with the stadium expansion.
An OAP block would also be a good idea.