It's what Mr Allam says will happen if all other eventualities are in place. It certainly creates more opportunities for it to happen than the current set up does, but it's your opinion against Mr Allams words before the opportunity to increase has even presented itself, so it's a meaningless discussion really.
Derby seem to be the most aggressive at amending prices to make sure they fill the place(I think they give a fair amount to schools etc too), they're expecting 24,000 on Friday night.
Im just using every single respective case there has ever been in the UK, but yeah it is hypothetical.
Everyone...except the ones I've mentioned and a few others no doubt. I guess the obvious fact that people have avoided certain away games because of the high price or gone to others because of the low price isn't a factor either.
What are you talking about? You keep changing the subject. There is not one example of a new stadium in the UK with an increased capacity meaning a reduction in ticket prices.
We all know this has nothing to do with wanting to expand the stadium. Its all about the developing the surounding land.
Yep hence 'Raich Carter Way' in Kingswood. Having said that there's also a 'Dawson Walk' in Anlaby.....
I've stuck to the same subject throughout. Your problem is that now I've widened the parameters from the narrow ones you invented to included having spare capacity rather than just adding new seats and then capitalising on it with cheaper tickets your point falls apart as there are plenty of examples to contradict it. New stadiums lead to more attendees which hold prices. Over and above that, yours is a mute point, it's simply your opinion, even if the examples of it happening hadn't existed, it would be academic. The point is, Mr Allam said more seats would mean lower prices. Your comments are simply hyperbole.
Here is my thought, we are what 7,000 seats short of capacity now? Add 10,000 seats to that, so we would be 17,000 seats short of capacity right? Either demand goes up a ton, or prices have to fall. It is one thing to be 7,000 short of capacity and not lower tickets, it is another to be 17,000 short of capacity and not lower ticket prices to fill seats.
I agree with what you're saying but your figures are too high. The 'capacity' is to some degree variable, but you can arguably take off 5,000 for away fans and segregation which means that the margin for home fans at the moment is very tight. Demand on several games a season exceeds supply for home fans, so supply and demand means there's little point lowering the price at the moment. Extra 'seats' can be added by getting all legal with the Police/safety bods and the segregation issue and make more of the ground available to home fans instead of policemen and away fans.
Is your argument here, in a nutshell, that we (as fans) should hope for a new stadium, as it would force the owners to lower ticket prices out of embarrassment of the amount of empty seats? If so - maybe we might get a bit of a cheaper season ticket in the short-term, but it sounds like it would ruin our club.
There wasn't so much an argument as just a thought. Either demand would some how go up a bunch, or ticket prices would have to drop. Why expand a stadium 10,000 seats and then have the same number of fans in it? Dutch is saying the numbers are off so maybe it doesn't follow. Another thought, how many people are really in our base population to draw from? For instance, here no biggy, increase a stadium lets say the redskins stadium. Boom, they will all sell out. Why? Because it draws from a population of what? 15 million people? Easy to fill. You cant just increase a stadium exponentially without the base population to fill it. Hulls population is what? A quarter million? Increasing it to 35,000 would be 14% of the entire population. At what point is it an unreasonable demand to expand the seat capacity. Again, I am not really arguing for one side or the other, just putting out some thoughts.
Geraghty 'organised' the first Hull Marathon earlier this year. Twenty years behind other major cities. An event that was supposed to 'put Hull on the sporting map' It did that alright. The 'marathon' was actually about half a mile short to be officially recognised as a marathon. Something none of the runners who had paid to run realised and after completing the race they were told it didn't count. Imagine that happening after the London Marathon ? Well done Terry Geraghty. The man who brought ice hockey to Hull. He said Hull City never got a crowd over 25,000 all the time we were in the Premier League. Which shows his ignorance. His quest to bring major sporting events to Hull fell flat on its face when the rugby league world cup (four countries compete) didn't chose Hull, that rugby league stronghold, as a venue for the knock out stages. We have got......erm Papua New Guinea based in the city.........but all the big games are to be held outside of Hull because our KC stadium is too small. When Papa Allam suggested an Olympic size swimming pool as part of the West Park/KC redevolopment, Geraghty said 'we already have Albert Ave baths in the area' Not mentioning the outdoor pool has been full of stagnate water for ten years and the indoor pool is about the size of your average bird bath.
Though the city of Hull has a population of 250k, it has a ridiculously tight city boundary and there's about another 250k in the surrounding areas, in which I suspect over half the people on this board reside.
Well if 7% is reasonable, and prices were lowered, AND the club was not saddled with to much debt then I don't see why it shouldn't be done. It is the debt issue that is the biggest risk for the club long term I would think.
