I think that is a very valid point. I.e how the club go about determining demand, when, etc.
The 1894 survey obviously went a long way, but arguing it should have been enough to convince the club that more than 3000 would be filled is misplaced imo. Lots of fans that filled it in and said they wanted most of the stand to be safe standing, won't actually be taking up those seats in the NS. Does that tangibly demonstrate demand? It shows that's what fans want to see, of course, but is that demand the club can actually back and allocate accordingly?
Think you are right, it will come once the first offers of relocation, ticket sales etc start getting put out by the club, and the reaction to that.
Whenever that is.
The wider point. though, is what's being requested is a dedicated atmospheric area, which wouldn't even necessarily be for more than 10% of the 60,000 capacity, where vocal fans could gather and have the option of putting on displays.
A significant part of the issue is the ground is a former athletics stadium where the sound doesn't really carry from the lower tier. It has then been developed in a piecemeal fashion, more due to circumstance than City's fault, But when SSL3 was opened I'd doubt it was known that rail seating would subsequently be put in SSL1. And when the rail seating was put in SSL1 I'd doubt it was known how many rail seats would be in any new NS.
It may be that City consider 3,000 rail seats in the new NS means there is enough rail seating in the ground. The end result is looking to me, though, like there will be 3 potential atmosphere areas none of which will be able to hear the others particularly well.
If the ground had been built as a football stadium with steep stands close to the pitch there probably wouldn't had been any need for any club intervention. As it is though, if City aren't fully committed to making the new NS an atmospheric stand I think the best outcome would be to put rail seats in all of SSL3 instead and make provision for any season ticketholders unhappy with this. The club could then decide what to do with the shiny new NS.
Safe standing is shit in my opinion.
Bring back proper standing or stop wasting money on stupid rails. Might as well just tell people in certain seats that they’re ’allowed’ to stand up and save the money.
Two ends are better than one.The wider point. though, is what's being requested is a dedicated atmospheric area, which wouldn't even necessarily be for more than 10% of the 60,000 capacity, where vocal fans could gather and have the option of putting on displays.
A significant part of the issue is the ground is a former athletics stadium where the sound doesn't really carry from the lower tier. It has then been developed in a piecemeal fashion, more due to circumstance than City's fault, But when SSL3 was opened I'd doubt it was known that rail seating would subsequently be put in SSL1. And when the rail seating was put in SSL1 I'd doubt it was known how many rail seats would be in any new NS.
It may be that City consider 3,000 rail seats in the new NS means there is enough rail seating in the ground. The end result is looking to me, though, like there will be 3 potential atmosphere areas none of which will be able to hear the others particularly well.
If the ground had been built as a football stadium with steep stands close to the pitch there probably wouldn't had been any need for any club intervention. As it is though, if City aren't fully committed to making the new NS an atmospheric stand I think the best outcome would be to put rail seats in all of SSL3 instead and make provision for any season ticketholders unhappy with this. The club could then decide what to do with the shiny new NS.
Traditional terracing is still outlawed in the top 2 divisions, this is the best compromise we're going to get sadly.Safe standing is shit in my opinion.
Bring back proper standing or stop wasting money on stupid rails. Might as well just tell people in certain seats that they’re ’allowed’ to stand up and save the money.