Off Topic Away supporters in home team areas

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
petersaxton said:
You are totally missing my point. I'm not saying that some clubs don't have noisier fans than others. I'm saying that if clubs create a lot of noise with no roof then they would create even more noise with the addition of a roof especially if it is covering all the fans and leaning down to enclose the fans like at Brentford or in the Kempton.
Click to expand...

What is ridiculous, if you look at that stadium, is the SAG said one reason away fans couldn't be moved to the Upper West was it was so steep it would be dangerous because if people stood up there could be a surge and people would go tumbling into the Lower West. Look,at the way they are carrying on in a three decker stadium with much steeper sloping with no problems.
 
petersaxton said:
Of course paying for it is a different issue. The SMC has still got a 37 year lease remaining. It's not like they can't increase the lease relatively easily. Would the council move in Rovers or North Ferriby instead? The Allam's should pay. What has not filling it every week got to do with it? Attendances are dependent on price. They could get higher attendances by lowering the prices.
Click to expand...

I am merely saying why they would not legitimately to them consider it necessary. And that doesn't take account of his spat with the council,and statements about people in a council house don't pay to,extend or improve it.

To be honest look at our attendances since 1967and there isn't a great deal of evidence to support having a much larger stadium.
 
Laws of economics and physics.
One of the laws of economics shows that, all things being equal, a reduction in price would increase attendances (unless capacity has been reached).
It is not a logical argument to say that if at England v France there's an attendance of 70,000 at Wembley with an average price of £50 then reducing the price to £40 and have North Ferriby play Scunthorpe resulting in a smaller attendance means my argument is flawed.
One of the laws of physics shows that, all things being equal, increased acoustics will result in more noise (unless the fans make no noise at all).
In a different scenario, it's not a logical argument to say that if somebody ran a distance a certain speed then using a sports car wouldn't get so far if there was no petrol in the car.
In both cases you should only change one factor to determine whether it has a certain effect.
 
Castro's Coffin said:
I am merely saying why they would not legitimately to them consider it necessary. And that doesn't take account of his spat with the council,and statements about people in a council house don't pay to,extend or improve it.

To be honest look at our attendances since 1967and there isn't a great deal of evidence to support having a much larger stadium.
Click to expand...
You are not comparing like with like. We are an all seater stadium now. There seems to be a lot of people staying away because of the prices. If we charged £10 for some seats in a greatly enlarged stadium I am sure, over time, we would get a lot of new fans and some of them would spend money on other things while at the stadium. I'd much rather watch a match in a stadium with 50,000 fans rather than 25,000 fans.
 
I was at Boothferry Park in the mid 60s when we played Millwall in the 3rd Division and about 46,000 got inside with thousands more unable to get in. I accept there's a lot of changes since then but this is partly due to more so called "middle class" supporters going and increased prices.
 
petersaxton said:
Laws of economics and physics.
One of the laws of economics shows that, all things being equal, a reduction in price would increase attendances (unless capacity has been reached).
It is not a logical argument to say that if at England v France there's an attendance of 70,000 at Wembley with an average price of £50 then reducing the price to £40 and have North Ferriby play Scunthorpe resulting in a smaller attendance means my argument is flawed.
One of the laws of physics shows that, all things being equal, increased acoustics will result in more noise (unless the fans make no noise at all).
In a different scenario, it's not a logical argument to say that if somebody ran a distance a certain speed then using a sports car wouldn't get so far if there was no petrol in the car.
In both cases you should only change one factor to determine whether it has a certain effect.
Click to expand...

I keep having to state ceteris paribus anytime I mention shifts and movements in supply and demand graphs. Doing my nut in.
 
petersaxton said:
I was at Boothferry Park in the mid 60s when we played Millwall in the 3rd Division and about 46,000 got inside with thousands more unable to get in. I accept there's a lot of changes since then but this is partly due to more so called "middle class" supporters going and increased prices.
Click to expand...

The Millwall matchI went to had 40,231 there in a stadium which at the time had a 42,000 capacity. Our next home game had 22,000 there.at the beginning of November we had a 12,000 crowd that season.
 
Castro's Coffin said:
The Millwall matchI went to had 40,231 there in a stadium which at the time had a 42,000 capacity. Our next home game had 22,000 there.at the beginning of November we had a 12,000 crowd that season.
Click to expand...
You are quoting the fans who paid. A lot climbed over the gates. I had to sit on the running track.
We had another later seven league matches over 25,000 as well as four FA Cup matches over 25,000 - Chelsea at home was 45,328.
 
petersaxton said:
Laws of economics and physics.
One of the laws of economics shows that, all things being equal, a reduction in price would increase attendances (unless capacity has been reached).
It is not a logical argument to say that if at England v France there's an attendance of 70,000 at Wembley with an average price of £50 then reducing the price to £40 and have North Ferriby play Scunthorpe resulting in a smaller attendance means my argument is flawed.
One of the laws of physics shows that, all things being equal, increased acoustics will result in more noise (unless the fans make no noise at all).
In a different scenario, it's not a logical argument to say that if somebody ran a distance a certain speed then using a sports car wouldn't get so far if there was no petrol in the car.
In both cases you should only change one factor to determine whether it has a certain effect.
Click to expand...

None of the arguments there prove anything. All our high priced £50 games in the PL sold out. All the lower priced ones didn't. I can remember 13,000 at Chelsea, being at Sunderland with 13,000 there. Now with all seater stadiums with higher prices they 40,000 plus. Man City when theyhsdvthe largest ground in the country never averaged more than 40,000. Now in an all,seater stadium with higher prices they get averages over that and have had to extend the stadium. One can always prove their case if they want to.
 
petersaxton said:
You are quoting the fans who paid. A lot climbed over the gates. I had to sit on the running track.
We had another later seven league matches over 25,000 as well as four FA Cup matches over 25,000 - Chelsea at home was 45,328.
Click to expand...

So you counted them all to confirm that 6,000 climbed over the gates?
 
petersaxton said:
You are quoting the fans who paid. A lot climbed over the gates. I had to sit on the running track.
We had another later seven league matches over 25,000 as well as four FA Cup matches over 25,000 - Chelsea at home was 45,328.
Click to expand...
A lot have drifted off towards glamour clubs since those days.
Youre going back half a century there.
Them sort of gates aint gonna hapoen to clubs the size of City
Look at the gates that the likes of Huddersfield and Blackpool used to get in the 50s/60s
 
Castro's Coffin said:
None of the arguments there prove anything. All our high priced £50 games in the PL sold out. All the lower priced ones didn't. I can remember 13,000 at Chelsea, being at Sunderland with 13,000 there. Now with all seater stadiums with higher prices they 40,000 plus. Man City when theyhsdvthe largest ground in the country never averaged more than 40,000. Now in an all,seater stadium with higher prices they get averages over that and have had to extend the stadium. One can always prove their case if they want to.
Click to expand...
You don't think that Hull City charged £50 for the matches more in demand?
What division were Chelsea and Sunderland in at the time?
Do you think the Manchester City example is anything to do with the players they have bought?
The cases I am proposing are using simple laws of economics and physics. I'm not making them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back