Jason and Debbie on DN35

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

After hearing the podcast I very much doubt safe standing would be introduced as it reduces capacity compared to seats.

I heard that and am staggered by it. I was surprised when I heard it was one for one so struggling to understand how it could possibly reduce capacity and it smacks of health and safety being taken a step too far.

I think one of the biggest problems is no shows not making their seat available for re-sale. There is no incentive to do so and if you want to do it, you have to dig into your account to find the facility.

There was a row of 6 empty seats to my left on Saturday and another row of 4 behind me.

If they want to sell out restricted seats then just put them on sale when all others have gone but at a reduced rate.
Pretty sure people would be savvy enough to realise that despite you buying a restricted view there will an empty prime seat somewhere in the same stand through no shows that you could sit at instead.
Club doesn't lose out, sells seats it otherwise wouldn't so increases income.
You don't have the costs of installing extra seating but could add several hundred places.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

I'm happy to create a Google Form document and run it for the whole of October for people to fill in when they've decided not to go to a game and state the reasons (i.e. only single seats, terrible views etc).

I can then forward that info to the Trust at the beginning of November who can drive it forward on our collective behalf.

I've had dialogue with the Trust and posted it in a thread somewhere on here that they are auditing the restricted views and that the club is looking at extra capacity. I'm just not sure Jason wants/sees the requirement for them as much as we do.

I think that's an excellent suggestion James

Quoted from TheRealJohnLewis

After hearing the podcast I very much doubt safe standing would be introduced as it reduces capacity compared to seats.

That's converting our existing seated areas back though. Correctly designed new build safe standing can have a higher capacity per sq m of area than seating [url]https://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-case-for-safe-standing/can-safe-standing-increase-capacity[/url] Actually, I'm not convinced that the Lower couldn't be put back to standing with at least the same capacity as present, there is a big area in front of the seats that could be used that isn't at present, but can understand why the Pontoon and Main can't - the depth of each row won't be 0.75 metres as per that document. For those in reasonable health standing is better for your health as well.

Quoted from Limerick Mariner

That's converting our existing seated areas back though. Correctly designed new build safe standing can have a higher capacity per sq m of area than seating [url]https://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-case-for-safe-standing/can-safe-standing-increase-capacity[/url] Actually, I'm not convinced that the Lower couldn't be put back to standing with at least the same capacity as present, there is a big area in front of the seats that could be used that isn't at present, but can understand why the Pontoon and Main can't - the depth of each row won't be 0.75 metres as per that document. For those in reasonable health standing is better for your health as well.

I’ve had this discussion with mates, we automatically assume that making the pontoon safe standing is the option but for me, the lower findus is actually the obvious choice, and as you say, more likely due to the space.

Personally, I can’t see them finding a safe standing solution at BP any time soon, which, if I’m honest, is completely understandable. I’m with Moosey though, I’d hold sales on restricted seats until all others are sold first, then just bang them on sale for cheaper…

I think most folk are savvy and nobody would care if someone moved in to an empty seat.

The whole attendance thing is an ongoing issue, a great one to have in some respects but I don’t believe it’s one that a easily solved and I still think there needs to be some decent research and data collection around how many are choosing not to go because they can’t get a ticket…

I wonder if this is turning in to a bigger deal for fans, and is higher up our priority list than theirs? There’s been so much wrong at the club, so much work having to be done that perhaps it’s simpler for them to just sell tickets and see our average gate up to 6.5k whilst they deal with other stuff like training ground, recruitment, sponsorship and advertising revenue and the likes…

I think the fact that this comes up on an incredibly regular basis on here and the way that 1878 have almost batted it away on several occasions definitely suggests that it's a bigger issue for fans than the club, or at least at face value anyway.

Without question the training ground, recruitment, sponsorship, even the culture at the club are all essential things moving forward if we're to progress.

But we can only expand to the point that our natural ceiling allows us to.  Equally so there's no guarantee that we'll have this wave of optimism/interest in the club for a while.  It would be a massive shame if we cap ourselves off at this self-imposed limit of what seems to be just under 7,000 home fans who can get into the ground each week.  

Many have said it before, including 1878, but everything has happened far quicker than expected.  This was probably a problem for four, maybe five, years down the line.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

I'm happy to create a Google Form document and run it for the whole of October for people to fill in when they've decided not to go to a game and state the reasons (i.e. only single seats, terrible views etc).

I can then forward that info to the Trust at the beginning of November who can drive it forward on our collective behalf.

I've had dialogue with the Trust and posted it in a thread somewhere on here that they are auditing the restricted views and that the club is looking at extra capacity. I'm just not sure Jason wants/sees the requirement for them as much as we do.

While well meaning I fail to see how this is going to capture the casual who doesn’t know a Google form or the fishy from their elbow and asks there mate what ticket availability there is and then gives up .
More likely to perpetuate the status quo then get the right answer

I think it's more complex than people on here assume. I think the perceived lack of availability drives sales to an extent and it's likely that had we had a capacity of 2000 higher we might have actually sold less season tickets rather than more. They also have to look at it from a business point of view. It's a shame that some people aren't attending because the seats available aren't together or where they want but it has to be enough to financially justify the expense in the long term.

JD did say on DN35 that they didn't want to do something cheap and temporary so it's then about justifying a more significant investment. Just bear in mind numerous posters on Saturday night were talking about people not renewing next season if our home form doesn't improve.

Quoted from HerveJosse

While well meaning I fail to see how this is going to capture the casual who doesn’t know a Google form or the fishy from their elbow and asks there mate what ticket availability there is and then gives up .
More likely to perpetuate the status quo then get the right answer

Let's all bury our head in the sand and do nothing about it then. I will put it on Twitter and on the Facebook groups. Yes it won't capture everyone but if it gives some good data then it's been worth it surely?

Sitting here whining about it hasn't exactly made Jason admit that it's a problem has it?