ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 11 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said: I think the day MK decide to do this is some way off for now Completely besides the point. It is about the principle of treating other clubs the way we would wish to be treated ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: Which is precisely the scenario that will apply to us next season. Not according to SL. Not what he is expecting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 11 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said: Not according to SL. Not what he is expecting So you think we can't give up to 4k to the away fans because we'll need more than 23k for home fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said: Oh and PS - £100k over the course of the season, whoopy do! That would cover ONE first team players wages for 10-12 weeks. You mean the ability to pay for the wages of someone like Tomlin on loan, wonder how'd we'd be doing without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: So you think we can't give up to 4k to the away fans because we'll need more than 23k for home fans? It really isn't that important and neither is the possibility of a bit of extra income once or twice a season. What is important, as I keep stressing, is not giving excessive allocations to the away team and therefore deliberately diluting home advantage. If they had the whole of the Atyeo City's corner taker would be the subject of abuse at both flags and should we get a penalty there would be thousands directly behind the goal doing everything possible to put our player off. For these reasons away fans should never be behind either goal imo., but if they must be then it makes sense not to give them an extraordinarily high number of tickets. Home support is needed behind that goal as well to attempt to nullify their anti City noise and aggression so at least our team aren't forced to play towards an unbroken mass of unfriendly faces for half a game in what's supposed to be a home match. Imagine you were a City player stepping out at AG, would you really want a massive bank of antagonistic away fans completely filling one end of your home ground? We also know the only clubs who might possibly take up these excessive allocations are the one's who have the most notorious hooligan followings - e.g. Leeds, Cardiff, perhaps Wolves on a Saturday - so there's a good chance many of the extra tickets made available to these clubs are likely to go to troublemakers, with the likelihood of disorder increasing. It's quite possible this prospect alone could put off some home supporters from buying tickets. All in all, a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Isn't it time to change the title of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said: Which is precisely the scenario that will apply to us next season. And what has when they were built got to do with it? Our ground is piecemeal with a stand alone Atyeo currently occupied by home fans Ricoh Madj and MK all bowls built from scratch with large unoccupied areas given over to away followings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, Loon plage said: Our ground is piecemeal with a stand alone Atyeo currently occupied by home fans Ricoh Madj and MK all bowls built from scratch with large unoccupied areas given over to away followings. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said: So you think we can't give up to 4k to the away fans because we'll need more than 23k for home fans? I'm not SL. Steve Lansdown is SL. He has said, when the ground is finished, he expects to see 20,000 season ticket holders never mind day trippers and away fans. That's what Steve thinks. Me? I'm not sure what to think, other than SL might be a bit disappointed, and that Leeds fans are more trouble than their £30 a piece is worth. 4,000 mk fans, no problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said: It really isn't that important and neither is the possibility of a bit of extra income once or twice a season. What is important, as I keep stressing, is not giving excessive allocations to the away team and therefore deliberately diluting home advantage. If they had the whole of the Atyeo City's corner taker would be the subject of abuse at both flags and should we get a penalty there would be thousands directly behind the goal doing everything possible to put our player off. For these reasons away fans should never be behind either goal imo., but if they must be then it makes sense not to give them an extraordinarily high number of tickets. Home support is needed behind that goal as well to attempt to nullify their anti City noise and aggression so at least our team aren't forced to play towards an unbroken mass of unfriendly faces for half a game in what's supposed to be a home match. Imagine you were a City player stepping out at AG, would you really want a massive bank of antagonistic away fans completely filling one end of your home ground? We also know the only clubs who might possibly take up these excessive allocations are the one's who have the most notorious hooligan followings - e.g. Leeds, Cardiff, perhaps Wolves on a Saturday - so there's a good chance many of the extra tickets made available to these clubs are likely to go to troublemakers, with the likelihood of disorder increasing. It's quite possible this prospect alone could put off some home supporters from buying tickets. All in all, a really bad idea. As I've said previously I believe a large away following generally brings out the best in the home fans and an overall improvement in the atmosphere as a result. And as a club that also often takes away followings of around 4k ourselves, would we want to be subjected to the same limitations? Looking at the wider picture, it's better for all clubs if we don't place unnecessary restrictions. If police advice dictates otherwise due to concerns about disorder, that is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: So what? Phew... Their grounds are way oversized for their crowds and they have large areas that have always been given over to away followings. The area you appear obsessed about in our ground has a sizeable number of local people in residence. If you genuinely believe that if Reading for example are restricted to 2700 fans (have they ever brought that many before??) that they would then retaliate by limiting us to 10% of their ground in a 25000 capacity stadium which would probably have 3000 empty seats around the visiting fans then it's no surprise that we aren't agreeing. As for MK doing likewise are you having a laugh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 27 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said: It really isn't that important and neither is the possibility of a bit of extra income once or twice a season. What is important, as I keep stressing, is not giving excessive allocations to the away team and therefore deliberately diluting home advantage. If they had the whole of the Atyeo City's corner taker would be the subject of abuse at both flags and should we get a penalty there would be thousands directly behind the goal doing everything possible to put our player off. For these reasons away fans should never be behind either goal imo., but if they must be then it makes sense not to give them an extraordinarily high number of tickets. Home support is needed behind that goal as well to attempt to nullify their anti City noise and aggression so at least our team aren't forced to play towards an unbroken mass of unfriendly faces for half a game in what's supposed to be a home match. Imagine you were a City player stepping out at AG, would you really want a massive bank of antagonistic away fans completely filling one end of your home ground? We also know the only clubs who might possibly take up these excessive allocations are the one's who have the most notorious hooligan followings - e.g. Leeds, Cardiff, perhaps Wolves on a Saturday - so there's a good chance many of the extra tickets made available to these clubs are likely to go to troublemakers, with the likelihood of disorder increasing. It's quite possible this prospect alone could put off some home supporters from buying tickets. All in all, a really bad idea. If we give the away fans 2700 tickets I'm pretty sure they will be behind the goal and near to one corner flag. The City fans, assuming they will be in the current area they occupy will be even further away from the action once the pitch is moved, not really the best place to create an atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Would a unreserved / standing - sitting / singing section be justified in the South stand? Not one poster on this thread has stated they would be prepared to contact BCFC, or raise a finger to see what credible support there is for it. Fans in the Atyeo stand are fine where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 34 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said: It really isn't that important and neither is the possibility of a bit of extra income once or twice a season. What is important, as I keep stressing, is not giving excessive allocations to the away team and therefore deliberately diluting home advantage. If they had the whole of the Atyeo City's corner taker would be the subject of abuse at both flags and should we get a penalty there would be thousands directly behind the goal doing everything possible to put our player off. For these reasons away fans should never be behind either goal imo., but if they must be then it makes sense not to give them an extraordinarily high number of tickets. Home support is needed behind that goal as well to attempt to nullify their anti City noise and aggression so at least our team aren't forced to play towards an unbroken mass of unfriendly faces for half a game in what's supposed to be a home match. Imagine you were a City player stepping out at AG, would you really want a massive bank of antagonistic away fans completely filling one end of your home ground? We also know the only clubs who might possibly take up these excessive allocations are the one's who have the most notorious hooligan followings - e.g. Leeds, Cardiff, perhaps Wolves on a Saturday - so there's a good chance many of the extra tickets made available to these clubs are likely to go to troublemakers, with the likelihood of disorder increasing. It's quite possible this prospect alone could put off some home supporters from buying tickets. All in all, a really bad idea. I remember when Preston was given the entire East End one season - it was like playing away and certainly did not inspire the home support to respond (they were a good team mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, Loon plage said: Phew... Their grounds are way oversized for their crowds and they have large areas that have always been given over to away followings. The area you appear obsessed about in our ground has a sizeable number of local people in residence. If you genuinely believe that if Reading for example are restricted to 2700 fans (have they ever brought that many before??) that they would then retaliate by limiting us to 10% of their ground in a 25000 capacity stadium which would probably have 3000 empty seats around the visiting fans then it's no surprise that we aren't agreeing. As for MK doing likewise are you having a laugh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Loon plage said: Phew... Their grounds are way oversized for their crowds and they have large areas that have always been given over to away followings. The area you appear obsessed about in our ground has a sizeable number of local people in residence. If you genuinely believe that if Reading for example are restricted to 2700 fans (have they ever brought that many before??) that they would then retaliate by limiting us to 10% of their ground in a 25000 capacity stadium which would probably have 3000 empty seats around the visiting fans then it's no surprise that we aren't agreeing. As for MK doing likewise are you having a laugh ? Those clubs were simply examples to demonstrate a principle; that principle being that if we are going to limit away attendances then we must be willing to accept the same treatment. However, Reading is not particularly oversized for its crowd any more than we will be next season. And if we're worried about large away followings influencing results, then surely that would apply even more so to MK where their home support is smaller and thus less able to compete with the away support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, glynriley said: Mind if I call you Tubbs Glyn ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Loon plage said: Mind if I call you Tubbs Glyn ?? You might as well, that's what my Mrs calls me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: Those clubs were simply examples to demonstrate a principle; that principle being that if we are going to limit away attendances then we must be willing to accept the same treatment. However, Reading is not particularly oversized for its crowd any more than we will be next season. And if we're worried about large away followings influencing results, then surely that would apply even more so to MK where their home support is smaller and thus less able to compete with the away support. The point you fail to acknowledge is that a limit on away followings of 2700 is considerably more than has been the case in previous seasons and I don't recall other clubs getting arsey about their lot . Can you give some examples where we might be retaliated against though - The teams who are likely to take up 2700 tickets next season ? Definitely Villa but they will be obliged to give us 10%. Sunderland ? ditto. Newcastle ? again. Wolves and Leeds I don't think give us more than they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixtyseconds Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 If Ciderup stops being angry with others and decides to stride forward with resolve going "COME ON SOUTH STAND LETS MAKE THIS SINGING SECTION HAPPEN!" Careful with those SS acronyms. Lefties get proper angry over that type of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTBLUE Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, glynriley said: You might as well, that's what my Mrs calls me! She calls you a lot worse behind your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 27 minutes ago, Loon plage said: The point you fail to acknowledge is that a limit on away followings of 2700 is considerably more than has been the case in previous seasons and I don't recall other clubs getting arsey about their lot . Can you give some examples where we might be retaliated against though - The teams who are likely to take up 2700 tickets next season ? Definitely Villa but they will be obliged to give us 10%. Sunderland ? ditto. Newcastle ? again. Wolves and Leeds I don't think give us more than they have to. You're right, it won't make much difference in those cases. But equally I'm not aware of many situations where we were denied more away tickets that we would have sold, in a ground with plenty of spare capacity. Anyway I've said more than enough now - I do appreciate both sides of the debate, I sympathise with those who wish to remain in the Atyeo and do understand the desire to limit away ticket sales, I just see pros and cons with both issues. I'll leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Dawe Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said: It really isn't that important and neither is the possibility of a bit of extra income once or twice a season. What is important, as I keep stressing, is not giving excessive allocations to the away team and therefore deliberately diluting home advantage. If they had the whole of the Atyeo City's corner taker would be the subject of abuse at both flags and should we get a penalty there would be thousands directly behind the goal doing everything possible to put our player off. For these reasons away fans should never be behind either goal imo., but if they must be then it makes sense not to give them an extraordinarily high number of tickets. Home support is needed behind that goal as well to attempt to nullify their anti City noise and aggression so at least our team aren't forced to play towards an unbroken mass of unfriendly faces for half a game in what's supposed to be a home match. Imagine you were a City player stepping out at AG, would you really want a massive bank of antagonistic away fans completely filling one end of your home ground? We also know the only clubs who might possibly take up these excessive allocations are the one's who have the most notorious hooligan followings - e.g. Leeds, Cardiff, perhaps Wolves on a Saturday - so there's a good chance many of the extra tickets made available to these clubs are likely to go to troublemakers, with the likelihood of disorder increasing. It's quite possible this prospect alone could put off some home supporters from buying tickets. All in all, a really bad idea. I agree with this, although I would say we did alright when Chelsea had the whole of the Park End in 1990. Scored two of our three goals down that end! Also, Cotts wasn't happy about away fans being over the tunnel last season and we only lost two home games in 23. Then he insisted on changing this so we had our lot around the tunnel, and we only won 2 home games and lost loads. Now the away lot are back over the tunnel, and we've since won more than we've lost. But I'd rather the visitors were out of the way a bit more, like you say. Give ourselves as much home advantage as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 I don't know if has been mentioned or takes place anyway but I thought I'd ask the question. Are there any meetings prior to the general meeting? This is to discuss any new ideas and plans about the club prior to the general meeting so you can discuss any problems that may occur from these ideas at the official general meeting. This gives you a few weeks to iron out any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Red Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 The only place to put the "standers/singers" in the SS would have been the back 10 rows, if the club had filled this with temporary fans from the Williams then a simple transition may have been possible but that has not happened plus we are told due to the rake of the stand, standing is not possible. Bearing in mind the Heineken lounge and community corner the SS is a complete no go for this section of fans. As a Atyeo season ticket holder I think staying in the Atyeo and developing the lower Dolman if possible is the best way forward or even better, give us the whole Atyeo and stick the away fans up in the upper Williams and net off the front 10 rows to avoid disturbing the prawn sandwich brigade below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, Dynamite Red said: The only place to put the "standers/singers" in the SS would have been the back 10 rows, if the club had filled this with temporary fans from the Williams then a simple transition may have been possible but that has not happened plus we are told due to the rake of the stand, standing is not possible. Bearing in mind the Heineken lounge and community corner the SS is a complete no go for this section of fans. As a Atyeo season ticket holder I think staying in the Atyeo and developing the lower Dolman if possible is the best way forward or even better, give us the whole Atyeo and stick the away fans up in the upper Williams and net off the front 10 rows to avoid disturbing the prawn sandwich brigade below. This is the crux of the matter, you say you are an Atyeo ST and then go on to say what you want to happen in other stands, part of your argument is to lose ten rows of seats in another stand and the income that will generate. what is required is a full and inclusive debate about what is best for the club and fans as a whole, that quite simply hasn't happened, the club has listened to a small number of fans who, in fairness, have got off their backsides to engage, however that doesn't mean they are right, nor does it mean the club is right, perhaps the main thing it highlights is the lack of consultation across the board with all the fans. I guess it's a perfect example of the silent majority being ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 I do not think DR has stated a desire to alter the South stand in any way. Right the way through the thread its clear that fans from the Atyeo are steadfastly wanting to concentrate on being in the Atyeo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 It's all about maths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Red Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 13 minutes ago, Countryfile said: This is the crux of the matter, you say you are an Atyeo ST and then go on to say what you want to happen in other stands, part of your argument is to lose ten rows of seats in another stand and the income that will generate. what is required is a full and inclusive debate about what is best for the club and fans as a whole, that quite simply hasn't happened, the club has listened to a small number of fans who, in fairness, have got off their backsides to engage, however that doesn't mean they are right, nor does it mean the club is right, perhaps the main thing it highlights is the lack of consultation across the board with all the fans. I guess it's a perfect example of the silent majority being ignored. The loss of income would be akin to segregation in the Atyeo, the Williams top tier could be segregated as required. It was just an idea no need to get your knickers in a twist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54-46 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 So, without ploughing through all 11 pages, any news on the cost to renew my Dolman ST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.