North Stand expansion - seating, ticketing etc

[supercity88]

It's positive to read that 1894 still have the door open, but I would still prefer things to be a bit more proactive. There is plenty of evidence out there from other clubs as to what does or doesn't work when it comes to atmosphere. What I found positive in the Club's Statement was:

During these discussions, it was clear that fans share our view on the importance of adding rail seating to the expanded North Stand. As such, the Club will introduce a minimum of 3,000 rail seats as part of the expansion, with the option of increasing this allocation ahead of opening should there be further demand.

I'm naturally very sceptical about these things. Probably because I work in construction and when it comes to consultation I definitely approach is at a tick in the box! This is quite different though, and I think the club do recognise that there's a need for the atmosphere to improve and to cater for the various demands from fans.

If 1894 could re-issue the surveys and say, having reviewed the club statement, they feel there is demand for additional rail seating (giving a preferred number (aim high)) and that they would welcome ticketing prices/information on season tickets at the earliest opportunity to help inform whether their members would seek to relocate then we should be heading in the right direction. Costs could be an issue. The club might not increase rail seating ahead of opening. But it's so obvious to me that the best place to negotiate from is being in there in the first place. First season atmosphere would be better than it is now, and in time as I've said repeatedly, it's more likely to get louder and louder with a rowdy bunch taking 3,000 of the "seats". That will soon double, and we'll have lift off.

 

[wearethesouthstand]

Thanks for your helpful reply. Maybe there could be some middle ground whereby City inform 1894 of ticket prices for the rail seat blocks. I’m just of the view that it’s better to be in the tent than outside. Even if employees of the Club (not many Blues amongst them) haven’t shown 1894 sufficient respect.

FWIW, I’m a member of 1894 as well as the OSC. That said, it is yonks since I helped with / contributed to any match displays. (FWIW, We have struck up a rapport with the Feyenord supporters group over the years thanks to 1894).

If 1894 had a role in helping to fill North Stand L2 with more singers, I could give time to help assess Blues who want to be in the main singing blocks. It doesn’t seem like that is going to be needed though so no worries.

That’s great Tim we’ll bear that offer to help in mind

 

[Gone for a Burton]

None of our requests / points raised to the club so far have been unfair or out of order. All info we pass on, was factual - evidence based with comments from fans and surveys done. We asked for surveys to be passed on to branches. If your branch didn’t receive one then we cannot control that. Please remember the timeline. Plans approved without fan consultation, tick box exercise started this April, no detail on prices.

When the club invites 1 person from our group and invites 12 from
Citymatters where 2 or 3 are proactive and the other 9 are passive and the club has control over the shortlist process and takes away its’ independence then the club don’t see us as being central to solving the problem. They want it ok’d by their hand picked panel with a token 1894 person there so they can pass the buck and say fans were consulted. That’s the reality of the situation.

It's positive to read that 1894 still have the door open, but I would still prefer things to be a bit more proactive. There is plenty of evidence out there from other clubs as to what does or doesn't work when it comes to atmosphere. What I found positive in the Club's Statement was:

During these discussions, it was clear that fans share our view on the importance of adding rail seating to the expanded North Stand. As such, the Club will introduce a minimum of 3,000 rail seats as part of the expansion, with the option of increasing this allocation ahead of opening should there be further demand.

I'm naturally very sceptical about these things. Probably because I work in construction and when it comes to consultation I definitely approach is at a tick in the box! This is quite different though, and I think the club do recognise that there's a need for the atmosphere to improve and to cater for the various demands from fans.

If 1894 could re-issue the surveys and say, having reviewed the club statement, they feel there is demand for additional rail seating (giving a preferred number (aim high)) and that they would welcome ticketing prices/information on season tickets at the earliest opportunity to help inform whether their members would seek to relocate then we should be heading in the right direction. Costs could be an issue. The club might not increase rail seating ahead of opening. But it's so obvious to me that the best place to negotiate from is being in there in the first place. First season atmosphere would be better than it is now, and in time as I've said repeatedly, it's more likely to get louder and louder with a rowdy bunch taking 3,000 of the "seats". That will soon double, and we'll have lift off.

' a MINIMUM of 3000 rail seats '.....

.....'and the option of increasing this alloction ahead of opening should there be futher demand '....

....and no mention of a maximum allocation !!

There is so much scope for filling much more than the 3000 allocation.

If the club would help all parties by issuing 'indicative' pricing/conditions,much progress could be made quickly for the benefit of everyone....surely that's not too much to ask ?

Perhaps I'm underestimating the 'complexity' of the process, however it doesn't appear to be rocket science.

Cmon City make it easy .

 

[M18CTID]

' a MINIMUM of 3000 rail seats '.....

.....'and the option of increasing this alloction ahead of opening should there be futher demand '....

....and no mention of a maximum allocation !!

There is so much scope for filling much more than the 3000 allocation.

If the club would help all parties by issuing 'indicative' pricing/conditions,much progress could be made quickly for the benefit of everyone....surely that's not too much to ask ?

Perhaps I'm underestimating the 'complexity' of the process, however it doesn't appear to be rocket science.

Cmon City make it easy .

Yep, this is exactly what needs to happen first then gauge interest off the back of that. It's pointless surveying fans now because 10,000 could say they'd be up for moving into the safe standing areas but if the prices then come out and are prohibitive that 10,000 could shrink to 2000.

So really the ball is back in the club's court for now until fans are aware of the prices. Only then can we get a better indication of the number of fans who are willing to move

 

[supercity88]

' a MINIMUM of 3000 rail seats '.....

.....'and the option of increasing this alloction ahead of opening should there be futher demand '....

....and no mention of a maximum allocation !!

There is so much scope for filling much more than the 3000 allocation.

If the club would help all parties by issuing 'indicative' pricing/conditions,much progress could be made quickly for the benefit of everyone....surely that's not too much to ask ?

Perhaps I'm underestimating the 'complexity' of the process, however it doesn't appear to be rocket science.

Cmon City make it easy .

It's not complicated to release pricing, but generally you hold off announcing prices until as late as possible. The club will want to review interest and revenue from the different pricing strategies it uses this season to inform what it will set moving forwards. We've got the new CL format where Inter tickets were staggering but Prague is more reasonable. They'll want to see what the revenues from the league phase bring in to help inform things.

If they announce prices now they'll inevitably be less than if they wait a few months. I'm not saying they're completely revenue focussed but that's the driving force behind the expansion so they're going to hold off until they've calculated what pricing strategy will bring in the most revenue. That might mean new seasoncards are limited in favour of other membership options, or that they favour introducing more season tickets. They'll be monitoring who is or isn't turning up - as best as they can and factoring that in. For all the moaning Villa fans did over the £100 CL tickets - they still turned up on Wednesday.

The pricing unlocks the whole discussion, so they need to announce general thoughts. I'm pretty sure the cheap season tickets in the SS expansion were announced quite early. Because I'm generally quite sceptical about things, the fact we've not seen an announcement around any sort of incentivised pricing (which would be a major PR winner with fans) means I doubt it's going to come...but I've been wrong before.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

It's not complicated to release pricing, but generally you hold off announcing prices until as late as possible. The club will want to review interest and revenue from the different pricing strategies it uses this season to inform what it will set moving forwards. We've got the new CL format where Inter tickets were staggering but Prague is more reasonable. They'll want to see what the revenues from the league phase bring in to help inform things.

If they announce prices now they'll inevitably be less than if they wait a few months. I'm not saying they're completely revenue focussed but that's the driving force behind the expansion so they're going to hold off until they've calculated what pricing strategy will bring in the most revenue. That might mean new seasoncards are limited in favour of other membership options, or that they favour introducing more season tickets. They'll be monitoring who is or isn't turning up - as best as they can and factoring that in. For all the moaning Villa fans did over the £100 CL tickets - they still turned up on Wednesday.

The pricing unlocks the whole discussion, so they need to announce general thoughts. I'm pretty sure the cheap season tickets in the SS expansion were announced quite early. Because I'm generally quite sceptical about things, the fact we've not seen an announcement around any sort of incentivised pricing (which would be a major PR winner with fans) means I doubt it's going to come...but I've been wrong before.

Noted, understood and largely agreed.

However 'Indicative'/ 'Outline ' pricing and conditions will help existing seat holders and new applicants make their plans and financial arrangements, and inform the club of levels of interest in the various options.

Whilst being cognisant of the clubs position, it should not be impossible for it to help it's CUSTOMER'S with timely information.

I've just booked several flights, 3 hotels and 2 cars for a safari next year with guaranteed prices.

Where there's a will there's away.

Cmon City.

 

[supercity88]

Noted, understood and largely agreed.

However 'Indicative'/ 'Outline ' pricing and conditions will help existing seat holders and new applicants make their plans and financial arrangements, and inform the club of levels of interest in the various options.

Whilst being cognisant of the clubs position, it should not be impossible for it to help it's CUSTOMER'S with timely information.

I've just booked several flights, 3 hotels and 2 cars for a safari next year with guaranteed prices.

Where there's a will there's away.

Cmon City.

It's certainly something they could have done, even if it's indicative at this stage.

That's where my scepticism comes from, as I'm sure the cheaper season tickets in the SSL3 were advertised quite early in the process, although I may be incorrect.

It would have been a great PR strategy and way to build up interest if, alongside the 3,000 rail seats they mentioned attractive incentivised pricing for existing season ticket holders to move to the singing section (labelling it as one), and for families and younger fans to access the new stand and facilities.

The fact they haven't makes me think they want to try and drain every penny possible out of it and they're likely to have a mix of different strategies to do so, probably through having a minimal number of new season tickets and the majority of the additional capacity being matchday tickets where they can charge more money.

That might not be an issue, as long as this expansion is centred on getting season ticket holders to relocate and those matchday tickets pop up in the areas they vacate.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

It's certainly something they could have done, even if it's indicative at this stage.

That's where my scepticism comes from, as I'm sure the cheaper season tickets in the SSL3 were advertised quite early in the process, although I may be incorrect.

It would have been a great PR strategy and way to build up interest if, alongside the 3,000 rail seats they mentioned attractive incentivised pricing for existing season ticket holders to move to the singing section (labelling it as one), and for families and younger fans to access the new stand and facilities.

The fact they haven't makes me think they want to try and drain every penny possible out of it and they're likely to have a mix of different strategies to do so, probably through having a minimal number of new season tickets and the majority of the additional capacity being matchday tickets where they can charge more money.

That might not be an issue, as long as this expansion is centred on getting season ticket holders to relocate and those matchday tickets pop up in the areas they vacate.

Incentivise / Reward existing STHs to move to NS2.

Offer their 'freed up' seats to other existing STHs.

Thereafter, all available 'free' seats / rail seats could be divided twixt STs, FlexGold & MDTs.

I'm at a loss to understand why this is becoming such a mystery & so complicated.

 

[Coatigan]

I’ll step in here as one of the organisers of 1894 - the statement doesn’t rule anything in or rule anything out. Please read the statement we entered into discussions in good faith but they only invited 1 person in from 1894 9 months after the plans had already been approved by mcr city council. So our fear is that speaking to fans was a tick box exercise, we gave our summary, that club seem want to maximise revenue over atmosphere at all cost. We also said there is time to alter plans, take on board fans feedback and we said our door open.

So that’s yes we want to work with the club - no we are not recommending a move at this moment until we hear more detail - no could become yes - ball in club’s court, they have to be serious about the atmosphere first.

I think if many on here were trying to deal
With the club they would just be happy to take any sub standard offer because they are not prepared to have the patience to hold out for further concessions.

Out of interest, had you been 'invited' before the plans had been approved by the council, what changes to the design would you have asked to see?

It is moot, but I am interested all the same.

Moot, because there was in fact a fairly extensive consultation process carried out before submitting the application, never mind having it being approved, lt was open to anyone and everyone including fans, fan reps, etc.

Forgive me for going over old ground on this one, but as the thread has been split now and you may not have been part of the discussion circa a year ago, I'll briefly summarise.

The first round was between December 22 and january 23 on basic ideas and feasibility studies. The second round in march 23 on concept proposals. There were three public events, 9th, 13th, 15th of march. And a drop-in exhibition available at the stadium all month. There was a live website the whole time where people could give feedback. And forms and where they could be sent to.

There is a 112 page report, on all the different ways it was advertised, who it reached, how feedback was gathered, all the parties that contributed including the wider community, and what that feedback was. By fans, anongst that. Specific quotes, and points included too.

Yes, it is a tickbox excersise. Not going to argue that. But it is a legislative requirement as well, and as such it has to he comprehensive, and transparent. And generally speaking, truthful, as the consultants producing these have to be professional and have their own reputation to uphold.

So to say you were only consulted 9 months after it was approved, as some type of high ground that the club aren't engaging, is a bit off. Individually, maybe, but as part of a wider fan base, that engagement was there, it wasn't a secret. It can't be, by law (planning law, but still law), for this class of development. Claiming otherwise is a distraction and shifts perception somewhat in the club's favour.

All this, on the design of the stand itself, not the pricing structure etc, which I do agree needs more clarity, although when that will come is up for grabs.

 

[pride in battle]

It's certainly something they could have done, even if it's indicative at this stage.

That's where my scepticism comes from, as I'm sure the cheaper season tickets in the SSL3 were advertised quite early in the process, although I may be incorrect.

It would have been a great PR strategy and way to build up interest if, alongside the 3,000 rail seats they mentioned attractive incentivised pricing for existing season ticket holders to move to the singing section (labelling it as one), and for families and younger fans to access the new stand and facilities.

The fact they haven't makes me think they want to try and drain every penny possible out of it and they're likely to have a mix of different strategies to do so, probably through having a minimal number of new season tickets and the majority of the additional capacity being matchday tickets where they can charge more money.

That might not be an issue, as long as this expansion is centred on getting season ticket holders to relocate and those matchday tickets pop up in the areas they vacate.

Its still early days yet, come on