Love it when anything said comes direct from Tony .... stuffing the anti-Barber lynch mob.
That ice cold, thirst quenching lager looks rather nice
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Barber on extra seats
- Thread starter Dick Swiveller
- Start date
Love it when anything said comes direct from Tony .... stuffing the anti-Barber lynch mob.
That ice cold, thirst quenching lager looks rather nice
The-Libertine
Active member
- May 2, 2006
- 256
Wouldn’t it become the North West?
Totally disagree. We have moved on. You need to too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I say 35k minimum if they are serious about sustainable top 10. Are they?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Megazone
On his last warning
The simple solution should be to just build a new ground at Waterhall or Shoreham harbour.
40k should be our target
40k should be our target
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,125
Or share with Palace at Gatwick Airport.
No longer have to worry about being within the borders of Brighton & Hove.
Megazone
On his last warning
Palace would be an absolute nightmare for the airport. That smog of shitness they carry will cause major disruption with planes unable to see the runway whilst airport staff vomit violently at the constant exposure of their smog of shitness. Only Croydon and the surroundings area have the tolerance and durability for their radioactive toxic smog of shitness, not even Gatwick airport could cope with their pollution.
Sorrel
Well-known member
There's enough seats already for some games (they wouldn't be offering two seats for £45 for the Burnley game if we were in danger of selling out), but for the "top" clubs it would be good if they could get some more in somewhere.
Whether it would be cost-effective I'm not so sure - wouldn't the extra cost of building outweigh the extra number of seats sold unless those attending were guaranteed to be spending a lot more money than just the ticket prices?
Whether it would be cost-effective I'm not so sure - wouldn't the extra cost of building outweigh the extra number of seats sold unless those attending were guaranteed to be spending a lot more money than just the ticket prices?
Grow up. You said yourself that there are atleast 2 songs going on by more than 1 group at times, I was just suggesting about getting them together and obviously singing the same song. The idea is to have the whole stand singing as one. Not sure why you’re being a dick about it.
Well maybe. Why ask someone in the West Upper if they think safe standing in the North would be good? I wouldn’t expect a survey about bottle tops in the South Stand lounges, because it doesn’t effect me.
What is the % of current standers at games? Maybe 10%, so it was never going to be a huge number of fans compared to the overall attendance.
Maybe I, like many others, should’ve gone then!
The club know that a few thousand want to stand, they don’t need a little forum and crappy survey to tell them that.
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
Safe standing is not only about those that want to stand, its impacts on others supporters as well. that's why every one was asked.
Otherwise Its like only asking convicted drunk drivers if they feel the alcohol limit should be raised.
That's because it is policy to inflate the attendance figures but I have absolutely no idea why or what the club hopes to achieve by artificially inflating the attendance.
I emailed club ages ago explaining the definition of "attendance" and how that differs from "tickets sold" but it doesn't appear to have sunk in. You would think Barber (if not his minions) would have understood.......but apparently not.
It wouldn’t impact fans in the West if it was in the North...which is where the current standers are.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
How about North Stand fans that might not be able (for whatever reason) to stand for the 90mins but be in/near the possible standing zone (it basically self governs now anyway, so why change)?
Jameson
Active member
Not bothered about increasing capacity especially but would love to have two "ends" for home fans; and shift away fans to a corner/side or upper tier, well out of the way. It's a massive advantage to the visiting team to have their fans directly behind the south goal.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Totally agree, but apparently we must make the 'away' matchday experience special, so they spend more AND come back.
Palacefinder General
Well-known member
- Apr 5, 2019
- 2,594
100%, no way should they be behind that goal.
I said exactly that on another thread. A 75,000* capacity stadium at Waterhall (no point in half measures), complete with train station and huge underground car park. If for any reason that isn't possible then the only sensible and practical solution to expand the Amex is to have extra tiers above the existing stands. "Stadium structure won't support it" I hear you say, but this is the clever part: the stands will be suspended above the existing ground by helicopters. This also gets round the transport issue as the heli-stands will fly round Sussex picking up ticket holders, then when they're full, they fly to the ground and stay in position until the match is over. Then the process is reversed. There is of course an obvious flaw in this plan: the Seagulls Travel people may object to the loss of potential revenue. But they'll still have their regular customers so I'm sure they'll come round.
*People may say that this is too big especially if we get relegated, but it will be designed so that the top tiers can fold down, a bit like the roof at the Millennium Stadium.
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 12,318
I'm not a business man by any stretch but surely it benefits the club to keep things exactly as they are?
Let's say, hypothetically, they were able to and decide to increase capacity to 40k to make all 8k on the waiting list happy and leave another ~1k for good measure. Great. But then the demand has gone. And if we were to go down attendances would naturally drop.