Way to get atmosphere at KC

It's difficult to answer your question directly, because in the past, your definition of 'fans group' and what they stand for has been flexible to say the least. It also depends on what you mean by 'consulted' because the versions of events have also been fluid, with it mentioned in passing at some meetings, to not being mentioned at all.

CTWD grew out of the Huddersfield campaign and has always been talked of in terms of where it could possibly go afterwards. To claim it's just about the name change does you no credit.

In short, I don't 'know' of anyone or group being consulted, but different versions of things from different people point to some people pushing their opinion forwards, and perhaps claiming it as the fans view.

It's no more use you pushing for something more solid, than it would be me pushing for the minutes of the meeting with Assam. I've been told things in confidence, and events and comments seem to back up what's been said.

While people deny that there's a significant section of fans pissed off, the mistakes will be made again. It's a shame, but some seem to put ego ahead of Club.

 

You think wrongly about my motives, and also about what I know of those meetings, and other areas where opinions were put forward. It's what I know that makes some of the obfuscation quite interesting.

I'm not blaming 'everyone' in fact I'm not actually blaming anyone. As far as it goes, I'm critical of your approach and attitude to the problem but that's not the same as blaming you for it happening.

I've said quite a few times that 'it's happened, we are where we are' but where we are could easily have been so much better for all concerned, even just based on the timescales you've put forward.

I'm not really critical of the Allams over this, as I believe they received advice in good faith, but I think the advisers were ill-informed. Before you start going on about 'meetings' and 'groups' you know as well as I do that influence can be brought about outside of meetings, with a word here and a push on an open door.

What we need is a proper channel between the fans and the club. The difficulty is that some have their own agendas, and worryingly some of them don't seem to realise they have.

 

As a sort of continuum of this thread, how will the East stand evictions be judged?

If the north is noisy, surely it would have been noisy in E1-3 anyway? If it's considerably louder, then surely the other stands will be quieter due to the noisy ones moving out?

If the other stands sing, doesn't that show the north stand move wasn't popular?

I guess one test will be if the away fans drown them out.

 

Not really. If the atmosphere improves, it needs to do it right round the ground AND be louder than the away fans. If that happens, it shows it was unpopular with a significant section of fans or the noisy ones would move north.

If the noisy ones move there, they'll be in different pockets in there and competing, and the rest of the stadium will be pretty much silent.

 

Fireworks.

Add fireworks!

Those and drums, goal music, cheerleaders, a brass band and strobe lights.

 

Do you seriously believe that? It was the penalty against (I think) Sunderland that raised a comment from the player, that should have resulted in him being told to man up, but the timing's bollocks for that to be any sort of reason.

You seem to be defensive and trying to simplify it, ignoring the fact those people were singing in E1-3 anyway. As I put, if the rest of the ground sings, it shows they saw the move as unattractive. If the rest of the ground is quiet, it shows it for what it is.

In my view, for it to have been successful, there needs to be a waiting list to get in. So far, there's been a dash to get out.

 

I think the first objective is to encourage the noisy fans to congregate together. When other fans want to be noisy then they may prefer to move to the noisy section.

I don't think a general campaign to get fans to be noisy from wherever they are will work.

 

That's the thing though Peter, the noisy fans were together and it was slowly drifting round. An easier option was to tweak that. Once the move was announced, gaps were going to open up in E4 (which they did) as people there didn't want to be near the away fans. It could have been an opportunity to create a second singing area. Unfortunately, others had their own priorities, but the fact other options to improve the atmosphere in conjunction with the move were proposed by people, and ignored, shows that total atmosphere wasn't the criteria.

 

If there's more noise its worked

If there's less noise its not worked.

Simple as that and I hope it works.

 

I'd say that's dismissive as it's far too simplistic to be obvious for the reasons already stated. It ignores far, far too much of the rest of the issue. Unfortunately, the losers when it gets dismissed are the club and fans, as opportunities to make best of the mess keep passing by.

The atmosphere could improve despite the name change. I've been told that Bruce wasn't really mithered either way, but let 'quotes' be attributed to him as he's trying to keep out of the whole nonsense. That seems to fit with the timing of these things too.

 

What if the noise is from away fans?

 

When new stadiums are built not enough thought is put into acoustics.