That will,explain why the PL has over95% occupancy then? And why we had larger crowds for £50 games than £16 ones?
We've obviously just lost a few plastic PL muppets. Luckily most went quietly mind, and don't bang on about boycotting the KC. They'll be back if we get promoted.
As I said in the Rod Stewart thread, if there aren't 25,404 there he will declare it a failure as it didn't sell out. And launch the idea again of a 3,000'arena heated by the ice skating rink which will be iconic and attract people from far and wide.
Of course no one else's crowds have decreased after relegation or gone up after promotion, it is unique to Hull. No other team had larger attendances for games against Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City than against Rotherham, Doncaster, Brentford etc... It has always been the case and always will be. Some of us have always gone to support City. Who they are playing is irrelevant. The main thing is they win. Others go to see the opposition. Which explains the lack of atmosphere at do any grounds nowadays. But their money is the same as everyone else's and that is the only thing that matters to the clubs despite the frequent calls for noise and getting behind the team.
They're going to be sat in the seats all round the ground? I'd expect them to put the stage at one end and seats on the grass and use the seats at the other end and the sides.
Yup. Never understood the going to a game because of the opposition tbh. Don't matter who we play I always feel a little pang of happiness and expectation when I leave the house to go see us play. I hope I never lose that feeling.
I bet if we were still at Boothferry Park with standing on Kempton there would be plenty of atmosphere. It's seating and bad acoustics that makes the difference. I remember going to see Led Zeppelin at Newcastle City Hall in the early 70s and as soon as they came on stage the crowd went wild. Later I saw them at Earls Court and people were getting up and walking out to get drinks and ice creams while the group were playing.
No. Just quoting the sort of crap ****wit Geraghty would come out with. He stated that the fact City had never sold all the seats, ie 25,404, was proof that there was no need to expand the KC. Never crossed his tiny mind that the reason for that was segregation and that for games in the PL they could have sold 10-15,000 extra going by the number ofvticietbapplications they had. Of course I didn't think they were hoping to be sat in seats all around the ground. I expected they will do as they have at other concerts, stage at one end, as who would pay to sit behind the stage?
Bad acoustics in the KC? The better acoustics in the North ?Stand were given as the reason the away fans sounded louder. Now City fans are in there it sounds quieter. Simple reason. Not as many are singing. There are lots of grounds around Europe with no roofs where the atmosphere is fantastic, and other where the roof is a lot higher than at the KC, so the height of the KC roof is irrelevant. These stadiums are also all seater like the KC. People opening their mouths is the reason for atmosphere. A load of people sat like they are at a theatre is the reason for the lack of it.
Which has no relevance to my remark about people not paying to sit behind the stage. Although it will have no doubt been a great experience.
In Kempton and even before on Bunkers people who wanted to have a laugh and make noise could group together. I don't see how you can say that a low tin roof like Kempton had wouldn't make more noise than an open terrace - at least with the same number of people. I agree with you that in other countries they don't need acoustics but that's more because of a tradition of making a lot of noise and people keep it going or there's standing and a lot of jumping about.
It used to be louder at Hillsborough without a roof than most places with one. In fact it was louder than it is there now with a roof on. Quite agree about people grouping together. All of us who knew each other and those wanting to make some noise could gravitate together. That was how a lot of us came to know each other all those years ago. Still see people I have known for over 45 years merely because we stood together on .Bunkers. Now if you roll up by yourself you are in a seat surrounded by people you don't know most of whose idea of what constitutes support is different. This is why a lot of people don't feel as inclined to go if they haven't got a season ticket and are sat with mates. Now my lads are working on a Saturday and I don't have a season pass spending £60to travel and get in without drinks or anything else, to sit on your own amongst a load of people sat in silence who glare at anyone doing anything as vulgar as cheering doesn't seem to have an overwhelming pull. Especially when your chairman thinks you are irrelevant and can die as soon as you want to.
They used to have people sat behind when the Beatles and others first did stadiums. The ones behind were rewarded with them turning around every now and again. They probably thought it was worth it to get a glimpse of their idols. Things have moved on since then. You could have a stage in the centre of a large stadium, though that can lead to security nightmares. Personally paying a load of money to sit miles away from the act on stage isn't my ideal but each to their own,
I agree with you. I used to attend the large concerts at Wembley and the festivals around the country. It was fantastic being near the front in the middle of all the excitement and I could even put up with being squashed against a lot of girls but not being able to pee for hours spoilt it a bit although some people had solutions. I remember going to one festival and there was a VIP section at the front and the masses were about 50 yards back behind a big fence. On the last night the crowd surged forward and smashed the fence down and all the "VIPs" ran for it.
Is it as cool to sing for the kids nowadays like it was in the 70s Thats where the noise came from in them days mainly teens
