I know this sounds odd, but acording to an article in a Charlton program when we were in the Prem, asked fans not to stand in seating area's because more people can be accomodated seated than standing. So having area's standing would reduce the stadiums capacity.
I would be perfectly happy paying the same price to stand. As for less fans in the same area I'm not so sure this is true as if you are sitting, theres a minimum of half a metre of leg sticking out in front of you...I'm sure someone on here could do the maths.
really? i thought they did. whenever you see german clubs in uefa they are all standing and boucing around.
Probably just standing at their (retractable) seats. Dortmund apparently had 80645 at home to Schalke, then 65829 at home to Madrid which would obviously have been a sellout.
really? i thought they did. whenever you see german clubs in uefa they are all standing and boucing around.
Probably just standing at their (retractable) seats. Dortmund apparently had 80645 at home to Schalke, then 65829 at home to Madrid which would obviously have been a sellout.
Amazing attendances for a city the size of Dortmund. Bring it back!
Of course we should bring it back...more fans, more atmosphere, more merchandise... Talking of Europe, is there a case for arguing for equal rights, i.e., the right to stand, & the right for a club to provide safe standing? And I'm only half joking!
Anybody see that article by some fella in the Standard tonight? Absolute b*llocks. Was pretty much a whole page dedicated to it, with him explaining all the logical arguments in favour of standing space at football but then concluding that despite all of those arguments, he's still dead against it.
The only reason he offered for that opinion was that he didn't think that it would remove the problem of people standing in seating areas because football supporters are morons who do what they like / shout / sweat etc. regardless of anybody else.
really? i thought they did. whenever you see german clubs in uefa they are all standing and boucing around.
Probably just standing at their (retractable) seats. Dortmund apparently had 80645 at home to Schalke, then 65829 at home to Madrid which would obviously have been a sellout.
That's right. It is a UEFA rule. That's why Viktoria Plzen played their Champs league games last season at Slavia Prague's stadium, but now they have reconstructed their old stadium and play in the Europa League there.
The main reason to do it, is that this is what the customers - and usually the most loyal customers -want. I think Mortimerician/Off_It's argument against is bogus. It's a one off cost of conversion, whereas the benefits of more satisfied customers are long-term. I would have thought just the North lower would be enough, but the way to find out is to do some simple market research, which would also help with the pricing.
One of the things I've learnt living next door to the buggers for nearly 20 years, is that if something works well in Germany, it's well worth copying.
The North lower would be ideal for standing, don't see why it's not given a trial run.
the problem is that it's against the rules as they stand (!) in this country... but the rules were based on a different era, crumbling terraces and of course, the interpretation of the Hillsboro disaster.
So how do we build a case to give it a trial run? Maybe this trust might take it up?
really? i thought they did. whenever you see german clubs in uefa they are all standing and boucing around.
Probably just standing at their (retractable) seats. Dortmund apparently had 80645 at home to Schalke, then 65829 at home to Madrid which would obviously have been a sellout.
That's right. It is a UEFA rule. That's why Viktoria Plzen played their Champs league games last season at Slavia Prague's stadium, but now they have reconstructed their old stadium and play in the Europa League there.
The main reason to do it, is that this is what the customers - and usually the most loyal customers -want. I think Mortimerician/Off_It's argument against is bogus. It's a one off cost of conversion, whereas the benefits of more satisfied customers are long-term. I would have thought just the North lower would be enough, but the way to find out is to do some simple market research, which would also help with the pricing.
One of the things I've learnt living next door to the buggers for nearly 20 years, is that if something works well in Germany, it's well worth copying.
"Bogus"? As in "not genuine; counterfeit; spurious; sham"???
OK then, where's the money coming from to take out the seats and introduce a safe standing area then Einstein?
And I'm sorry but those that think "safe standing" involves a return to packing people into terraces or somehow miraculously doubling the capacity of any given area are sadly deluded.
I can see why you may want to introduce it from scratch in a new ground/stand if you could, but am not convinced there is a sound business case for altering and existing seated area - and "business cases" are where football is at these days.
I also thought bogus was the wrong word...absolute bollocks would have been more correct ps. I stopped going to Charlton when it became all seater, I know I wasnt alone in this action.
Bogus, Off_it, as in neither of us know the cost, and you haven't stated the payback period, before writing off the business case. And you have the example of loads of German clubs - and BTW many Championship clubs have higher gross revenues than Bundesliga 1 clubs
I doubt the cost is that prohibitive or the business case unsound since Peter Varney always stated he was in favour if the authorities would allow it. And I suspect he knows more than either of us about the business case
How could you possibly trial run such a thing anyway? Order a workforce to remove all the seats and fittings etc and put up a load of guard rails for a Saturday game, then come Sunday tell them to change it all back again?!
Bogus, Off_it, as in neither of us know the cost, and you haven't stated the payback period, before writing off the business case. And you have the example of loads of German clubs - and BTW many Championship clubs have higher gross revenues than Bundesliga 1 clubs
I doubt the cost is that prohibitive or the business case unsound since Peter Varney always stated he was in favour if the authorities would allow it. And I suspect he knows more than either of us about the business case
Surprised at you picking this particular fight.
Picking a "fight"? With you? Don't make me laugh.
And what possible business case could there be to spend dosh we don't have now for some potential payback in the future? I thought we were absolutely potless, on the verge of administration, things looking very dark, etc , etc.
In fact, aren't you one of the people that's been constantly telling us that ad nauseum fot the past however many weeks?
Well the North Lower currently seats just over 3000, call it 3000 to make the maths easier. So if changed to standing you could accommodate and extra 1000 people in the same area. So in theory you could charge 25% less for standing tickets, and still make the same money from the stand. From previous conversations on here, Airman has stated that each person in the ground is worth on average £1 per game in additional merchandising (food, drink, programmes, etc.) So you'd be making £1000 extra a game, even with the cheaper ticket prices. Over a season this would equate to an extra £20k+, more than enough to pay for the change from seating to standing one would hope.
And that's a minimum figure. If you could serve fast enough (questionable) it could be argued the sort of fan who would use a standing area would be more likely to spend more on drink. If ticket prices were £20 (currently £25 there for seating) the club could bring in between £2000 and £5000 extra income per game (it will be less then £5000 due to concessions and season ticket savings), so there should be no problem with the conversion paying for itself well within the first season.
So, it pays for itself within a season, increases capacity by 1000, increase income (admittedly by a negligible amount when compared to total match day income) and improves the atmosphere. There really is nothing to dislike about the idea.
I don't care how we do it. I just want us to manage it. I started supporting Charlton in 1989. So I got to stand (on a bucket as I was very small) at Selhurst Park and Upton Park. I'd love to stand at games at The Valley.
Subject to getting permission, We could trial it by removing 1 or 2 blocks of seats in the Lower North on a trial basis to see how popular it was.
I like the idea of the 'hardcore' fans being in the Lower North because as it is as the moment, all the noise is made in the Upper North and it's too far away from the pitch for the players to feel much benefit.
Remember the atmosphere in the early days back at The Valley when we were all packed into the then one tier North Stand? Since the Upper North has been built the atmosphere has never seemed quite the same to me.
assuming you can sell it out randy andy - and that you don't lose income from people simply deciding to relocate there from other more expensive parts of the ground.
For the record: I'm really all for it. Had some cracking days on the terraces back in the day. Just not entirely convinced that it is as much of a "no-brainer" as some seem to think, or that the outlay would see an instant or meaningful return - but am more than happy if it does ("Bogus" or not!)
assuming you can sell it out randy andy - and that you don't lose income from people simply deciding to relocate there from other more expensive parts of the ground.
For the record: I'm really all for it. Had some cracking days on the terraces back in the day. Just not entirely convinced that it is as much of a "no-brainer" as some seem to think, or that the outlay would see an instant or meaningful return - but am more than happy if it does ("Bogus" or not!)
That's why I mention the £20 price point. It's less than the current North Lower, but no cheaper than anywhere else, so won't cause migration solely for pricing reasons. Of course to pay for itself it's reliant on increasing overall attendance, which we can't know with doing market research, or just trying it. In that respect it has to be compared to any other stand expansion plans. However, it would be significantly cheaper than any other way of adding 1000 seats/spaces to the ground. Obviously it's not an issue right now, but in a couple of years, if we can regularly challenge at the top of the champ, or sneak into the prem, then it would be an attractive way of quickly and cheaply adding capacity.
I think the licensing, insurance, policing and other bureaucratic issues are actually for more relevant and costly than the physical removing of seasons and installation of barriers.
Bogus, Off_it, as in neither of us know the cost, and you haven't stated the payback period, before writing off the business case. And you have the example of loads of German clubs - and BTW many Championship clubs have higher gross revenues than Bundesliga 1 clubs
I doubt the cost is that prohibitive or the business case unsound since Peter Varney always stated he was in favour if the authorities would allow it. And I suspect he knows more than either of us about the business case
The financials certainly add up for the clubs - depending on what the authorities ultimately allow in terms of capacity increases (which will also be influenced by existing infrastructure, such as number and size of vomitories, concourse size and facilities etc.), pay back could be very quick ... even within just a handful of games.
In the first instance it would just be nice to get to a stage where clubs could sit down with their architects and accountants and consider the possiblity of a safe standing area as a real option rather than just a hypothetical idea. To that end, we need to convince the government to allow a few small-scale pilots, as called for in EDM 573. Please therefore use this quick and simple tool to urge your MP to support that EDM.
Well the North Lower currently seats just over 3000, call it 3000 to make the maths easier. So if changed to standing you could accommodate and extra 1000 people in the same area. So in theory you could charge 25% less for standing tickets, and still make the same money from the stand. From previous conversations on here, Airman has stated that each person in the ground is worth on average £1 per game in additional merchandising (food, drink, programmes, etc.) So you'd be making £1000 extra a game, even with the cheaper ticket prices. Over a season this would equate to an extra £20k+, more than enough to pay for the change from seating to standing one would hope.
And that's a minimum figure. If you could serve fast enough (questionable) it could be argued the sort of fan who would use a standing area would be more likely to spend more on drink. If ticket prices were £20 (currently £25 there for seating) the club could bring in between £2000 and £5000 extra income per game (it will be less then £5000 due to concessions and season ticket savings), so there should be no problem with the conversion paying for itself well within the first season.
So, it pays for itself within a season, increases capacity by 1000, increase income (admittedly by a negligible amount when compared to total match day income) and improves the atmosphere. There really is nothing to dislike about the idea.
Agreed but its never actually sold out. Or even close to it.
this clearly makes sense if only for improving the atmosphere. it is no coincidence how intimidating the Britannia is and how good stokes home record is.
this clearly makes sense if only for improving the atmosphere. it is no coincidence how intimidating the Britannia is and how good stokes home record is.
Comments
Talking of Europe, is there a case for arguing for equal rights, i.e., the right to stand, & the right for a club to provide safe standing? And I'm only half joking!
The only reason he offered for that opinion was that he didn't think that it would remove the problem of people standing in seating areas because football supporters are morons who do what they like / shout / sweat etc. regardless of anybody else.
The main reason to do it, is that this is what the customers - and usually the most loyal customers -want. I think Mortimerician/Off_It's argument against is bogus. It's a one off cost of conversion, whereas the benefits of more satisfied customers are long-term. I would have thought just the North lower would be enough, but the way to find out is to do some simple market research, which would also help with the pricing.
One of the things I've learnt living next door to the buggers for nearly 20 years, is that if something works well in Germany, it's well worth copying.
So how do we build a case to give it a trial run? Maybe this trust might take it up?
OK then, where's the money coming from to take out the seats and introduce a safe standing area then Einstein?
And I'm sorry but those that think "safe standing" involves a return to packing people into terraces or somehow miraculously doubling the capacity of any given area are sadly deluded.
I can see why you may want to introduce it from scratch in a new ground/stand if you could, but am not convinced there is a sound business case for altering and existing seated area - and "business cases" are where football is at these days.
ps. I stopped going to Charlton when it became all seater, I know I wasnt alone in this action.
I doubt the cost is that prohibitive or the business case unsound since Peter Varney always stated he was in favour if the authorities would allow it. And I suspect he knows more than either of us about the business case
Surprised at you picking this particular fight.
youtu.be/apX5V1IJCW4
Seated: 1 square metre = 2 people.
Standing: 1 square metre = 2.7 people.
.7 of a person multiplied by however many plus merchandise, food, drink etc
And what possible business case could there be to spend dosh we don't have now for some potential payback in the future? I thought we were absolutely potless, on the verge of administration, things looking very dark, etc , etc.
In fact, aren't you one of the people that's been constantly telling us that ad nauseum fot the past however many weeks?
"Bogus" my bloody knob cheese!
And that's a minimum figure. If you could serve fast enough (questionable) it could be argued the sort of fan who would use a standing area would be more likely to spend more on drink. If ticket prices were £20 (currently £25 there for seating) the club could bring in between £2000 and £5000 extra income per game (it will be less then £5000 due to concessions and season ticket savings), so there should be no problem with the conversion paying for itself well within the first season.
So, it pays for itself within a season, increases capacity by 1000, increase income (admittedly by a negligible amount when compared to total match day income) and improves the atmosphere. There really is nothing to dislike about the idea.
Subject to getting permission, We could trial it by removing 1 or 2 blocks of seats in the Lower North on a trial basis to see how popular it was.
I like the idea of the 'hardcore' fans being in the Lower North because as it is as the moment, all the noise is made in the Upper North and it's too far away from the pitch for the players to feel much benefit.
Remember the atmosphere in the early days back at The Valley when we were all packed into the then one tier North Stand? Since the Upper North has been built the atmosphere has never seemed quite the same to me.
For the record: I'm really all for it. Had some cracking days on the terraces back in the day. Just not entirely convinced that it is as much of a "no-brainer" as some seem to think, or that the outlay would see an instant or meaningful return - but am more than happy if it does ("Bogus" or not!)
I think the licensing, insurance, policing and other bureaucratic issues are actually for more relevant and costly than the physical removing of seasons and installation of barriers.
In the first instance it would just be nice to get to a stage where clubs could sit down with their architects and accountants and consider the possiblity of a safe standing area as a real option rather than just a hypothetical idea. To that end, we need to convince the government to allow a few small-scale pilots, as called for in EDM 573. Please therefore use this quick and simple tool to urge your MP to support that EDM.
Agreed but its never actually sold out. Or even close to it.