North Stand expansion - seating, ticketing etc

[Prophet of Doom]

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.

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.

 

[blueparrot]

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?

Think that would be a good idea now 1894 have issued the statement.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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.

 

[Eccles Blue]

An OAP block would also be a good idea.

Why? As an OAP I don’t want to be surrounded by OAPs. I like the banter with the youngsters around me.
Plus what about when OAPs go with family, sons, daughters, grandchildren?
Why isolate them?

 

[Coatigan]

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?

Which if true then makes your earlier point about there being no need for NDAs 'secrecy' etc a bit redundant, right.

 

[M18CTID]

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.

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.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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.

 

[Coatigan]

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?

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.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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".

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

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.

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.