Stadiums have safety ratings. These determine the % of occupancy of any stand allowed, irrespective of seats. Some older stands in clubs are limited heavily due to these issues and there will always be empty seats on show. More seats means more work to make sure the safety rating reflects the increases. I have heard some interesting stories of small clubs getting plum cup ties, and overselling the stands beyond the limits... It can be much more dangerous than it sounds.
Only those in the affected area, and there'd still need to be a means of getting them onto the pitch, out of the ground and emergency services in. There's requirements and conditions for pitch access for certain situations. Again, the main issue with the seating/standing isn't in an emergency, it's the egress, which is how I described it above. They're different things.
Not really relevant, but Barnum, of Barnum and Bailey fame, found people were spending more time than he wanted them to wandering around more than once. So he put a new sign up - "this way to the Egress" pointing to a door. Problem solved.
The percentage occupancy of a new stadium should be 100% unless there are some other mitigating issues. Generally there are some factors that will reduce this on the day, but it's a variable figure and is open to some degree of interpretation. It's not cast in stone.
Well, the first one was from memory. I dug out the Chris Elton book to look those up. Still, not a lot of 30,000 crowds in the mid sixties. Your mind can play tricks. My favourite times were on Bunkers when .terry ?Neill was here. Always seemed packed But only 3 crowds for league games topped 25,000 in his time here and the highest of those was 27,000. My memory of the 4-4 draw with Wednesday is a jam packed place but there were 24,000 there in a stadium which held 42,000.
Good thought Peter, but on the equation of 1.8 ppl standing per 1 sitting the numbers don't stack up for Mr Allams £50 tickets, and I really doubt City would attract 47k @£5 per ticket, let alone your quoted £10 or indeed the £20 plus it would need to be to persuade Allam down that road
Cheap Premier League football would attract a lot of people. The revenue could easily be made up from the other sources I've quoted. In the 60s going to football matches was a lot of fun for young people. I know I had fun then. Now I'm 62 I doubt whether I'd be able to join in with "Disco Dancing City" for long!
In 1965-66 Gillingham was 30,122 also. All these attendances were in Division 3. I know that's already been stated but it is still mind blowing.
But you cannot 'plonk' Wembley in Hull. Besides any team playing at Wembley in a final attracts a full house. Even Hull City have played there three times and the ground was full. If Hull City played in a regional sport with only a dozen or so other team to compete against, and three quarters of those representing pit villages then I'm sure we would have a bit more silverware. So a ridiculous comparison by you. The Widnes relevance is to compare a small town club like them against city clubs like FC and HKR. Both Hull RL clubs are massive under achievers in the tiny world of RL in comparison to the likes of Widnes. I'm not disputing that Huddersfield Town have won more then City, in fact it just confirms my point that the crowds City attracted are pretty impressive seeing we have never won anything. You may as well say Huddersfield RLFC have won more then FC. 'The rugby clubs have always reached capacity crowds' you claim. The record at the old Craven park was under 15,000 ( I was in it) and the boulevard record crowd was about 20,000, wow! FC have yet to reach capacity at the KC. But feel free to keep digging.............
In the 60s, 70s, even 80s and 90s, there was less to do than there is nowadays. Less coverage of less sports on tv for a start. Dunno why people keep harping on about the olden days, for a start they weren't all that frigging golden in a lot of other respects, and they've gone, they aint coming back. You couldn't carry, and listen to your entire record collection either back then. A huge range of diseases, if you got them, you died. Class was everything, you were born, worked and died in it. ****e loads more examples about how things are better now. Not everything, of course, but would I want to live in the 60s knowing what I know now? No, no thanks. Try looking forwards a bit, it's not that scary.
Shhhh, nowt for you to worry your pretty little head about. The adults are talking, go find sommat to play with.
The late 60s and the 70s where the greatest times ever If you don't know that Mr Happy your either to young Or you had a boring life back then The music was better......Trojan Reggae , Motown, Ska The dress style was better Kids wouldn't be seen in a car it was either a motorbike or a scooter. Football specials.....Hitch hiking all over to games Mods n rockers Scooter boys, The original Skinheads Decent night clubs, real pubs before they all went pouncy Wimpy bars ...pick a dish Real atmospheres at footy. Youth clubs Monte Carlo Albermarle y.c Haworth arms upstairs on a Friday or Saturday night Everything was better
Sure TF, what about the 3 day week, power cuts, low wages, industrial accidents on an industrial scale, the cold war and the ever present threat of a nuclear holocaust, strikes, winter of discontent... Thing is, you, and I were kids back then. When you're a kid, lifes great, or it was for us. I wouldn't wanna go through what my parents did back then, my mam and dad both working 2 jobs to make ends meet with a young family (I was worth it mind!). Struggling every month, no sign of a way up and out. Obviously your experiences may vary. I loved my teens too in the 80s, but, I wouldn't have wanted my kids to go through that, and you know what, I'm pleased they didn't.
That's exactly why I am saying that the ground should be expanded and prices reduced. I'm not scared about that at all. If you don't study history you can't learn effectively about the future.
