The only way this would appeal to Clubs would be if it would increase revenue. I don't know the exact figures but am sure I saw somewhere that the German experiment, which we would follow, didn't increase capacity by very much meaning, and I know some thought I was being flippant, that the only way revenue would increase was if the standing section paid the same as the rest and why not? You are standing because you want to and you find it more pleasurable and you are seeing the same game and enjoying the same facilities as the rest of us. I genuinely believe that a lot of people want standing because they assume it would be cheaper but those days are gone and I really wonder how many would sign up if it meant paying the same price. I am also against any standing areas on principle as I see it as one step back to the days of trouble and I just don't see why Football needs to step back in time when every other form of entertainment is moving forward.
German "rail seats" which seem to be the model most advocacy groups are settled on, are according to guidelines meant to translate 10 seated fans into 18 standing. If the lower Barclay has 3000 seats, then that'd be 5400 standing fans. At £30 a seated ticket, that's £90k revenue per game. 5400 standing at £20 a ticket is £108k a game. An £18k increase per match across 20 home games a season is £360,000 a year in additional income. I'd be surprised if it doesn't pay for itself within a season.
There are literally constant examples of where the same product is consumed but people pay different prices. The theatre, airlines, Carrow road already, a good seas in the middle of the Jarrold is more expensive than top of the N&P. Not to mention it's the model used by most clubs that already have terracing. My ticket for the terracing at Brentford was £10 cheaper than a seat
Revenue is quite frankly irrelevant, profit is what is important. I'm willing to concede that there are fixed costs that are applied basically per person. Stewarding and policing, toilet facilities, the running cost of the food kiosks. On top of that though they can make a profit effectively per square meter. To make the same profit margin per square meter as they would gain from seated area then they could provide a big discount. The reality is is would be a smaller discount meaning, admittedly, a lower profit margin per head, but a higher one per square meter. As I said before this isn't a costing model I'm inventing, it's the one used in pretty much every industry where supply is constrained by space. I've heard it referred to as many things but I was taught it as "pricing up the demand curve".
Why on earth would people pay the same amount for standing as for sitting? You're paying for less space and no seat, therefore it's cheaper. It's a different experience. I'm surprised this is a discussion point!
Bath is right in saying that there are some 'fixed costs' - though I'm afraid the profit they already make on food/drinkis outrageous!!!!
I personally don't know why people would want to stand. I suppose it might be because all I have known is an all seater Carrow Road. I have stood at games in the FA Cup and here in Perth. I can see more and enjoy it more when sitting in games... and when you score you can jump up and go crazy.
If I had to pay the same price as someone with a seat it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Cheaper prices wouldn't be financially viable if we started charging Bundesliga prices for terracing, since about nine of the clubs in that league have stadiums with 50,000+ capacity.
My recollections about standing in the Barclay back in the early 70's and 80's was that enjoying the crowd experience was almost as important as the match. I think nowadays almost all supporters are more knowledgeable and seating is better from that perspective. I suspect you could make the current Barclay and the Snakepit plus the lower terrace in the River End standing and pack a lot more people in and they'd have a whale of a time. You'd probably need to make some if not all the away area standing as well. As always the answer isn't one or the other but a grey zone in the middle somewhere.
You are talking as if you want a return to the old style terracing. A return to any form of standing is unlikely but a return of the old style terracing is completely and utterly out of the question for as well as some genuine supporters having a ' whale of a time ' so would the returning hooligans who have little interest in football and who were driven out by all seater stadiums. Introduction of limited German style arrangements would not ' pack a lot more people in ' and as Northampton says would only be financially viable if the standers paid the same price as the sitters they replaced. As set out before I can see good reasons why they should but if it happened I suspect that a lot of the desire for standing areas would disappear. I also again make the general point. Why is it when every other entertainment is trying to improve comfort and facilities football needs to take a step back in time?
Yet again, 1950, your points come over as if it's 'all or nothing'? Nobody that I can recall has ever said that's the way to go, but if there are supporters who would prefer to stand - so they can be with their friends or have long gangly legs which are not comfortably accommodated with the Ryanair style legroom afforded at most clubs, then why not. It certainly cranks up the atmosphere volume, FACT. And wouldn't continually ruin the knitters enjoyment because stewards constantly walk in front of everybody asking people to sit - even when there's goalmouth action going on in front of them. Live and let live, as far as I'm concerned
At the moment a large part of the Barclay spend as much of the match standing as they can and bemoan away stewards for making them sit when not at CR. I don't advocate a return of the old terracing but don't have a big problem with limited rail standing in areas where the current seating system is unsafe if a lot of people are standing a lot of the time. The old days are unlikely to return in any real sense as the technology to police the stadium is light years away from what was available in the 70's, there will always be toe-rags at football matches but I don't think allowing people to stand in a restricted and controlled way will herald a return to the old days.
I'm sorry if I give that impression - I don't mean to. All I am suggesting is that if you take out a small proportion of the seats to make way for German style standing it would only be financially viable to the Club if the standers paid the same price as the previous sitters/knitters and that I suspect that if that happened a lot of the desire for the arrangement would evaporate. I just can't see the authorities agreeing to it as it would represent a backward step and I share that view but I can see an argument for it if it was limited to small areas and the pricing policy I've set out was adopted to make it to the financial benefit of the Club.
I'm sure they'd be happy to - if only to have a clear view of the action as opposed to a high-vis stewards jacket in their sight line for half the match
With that criteria it might be worth an experiment with,say, removal of 1000 seats at the back or in one block although I still doubt whether the authorities will agree and I still doubt the level of demand.
The lower tier of the Barclay and the Snakepit do their level best to stand as much as possible as things stand - until high-vis steps in, so I'd have no qualms whatsoever on that account.
