All time average attendances (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I agree with the netting off. Net off the areas at the back so there are more people close to the pitch rather than entire blocks. However due to H&S/stewarding I can see why that was probably preferred.



If we want a new stadium to feel like home it has to be used for the big games too. If we moved out everytime we got a 'big match atmosphere' it wouldn't get that connection. So I'd stay at the smaller stadium and consider price rises to mitigate the potential lost revenue from extra demand. I know it'd be unpopular and get complaints on SM but it would be costly to the club to miss out on the money.

Yeah I think on balance you’re right. I’m sticking with 25k as the sweet spot then, but built so 15k still feels full, whether that’s cutting off areas or some clever architecture I’m Not aware of.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yep there would be all kinds of issues, thats just my wishlist. You can have standing blocks next to seating blocks these days with no problems, so you could flex the capacity any way you like.

I agree. The one thing I'd like about having these safe standing areas is that it'd be much easier to police IMO. If you're in the sitting area and you stand, you are either moved to the standing area (if spare capacity) or chucked out. Plus you can't complain if you're in the standing area and want to sit down.

 

[Gibbo]

The issue is the extra cost of making it a 24k stadium rather than 18k one, measured against the extra income from the games where the gate exceeds 18k. As Cup games don't do it - we had 15k for Stoke - and there is no guarantee you get a top club at home anyway you are down to local derbies or top of the table clashes. Rule out the latter. That leaves an annual game against Brum or maybe Villa. £18k may be enough.

 

[Gibbo]

The issue is the extra cost of making it a 24k stadium rather than 18k one, measured against the extra income from the games where the gate exceeds 18k. As Cup games don't do it - we had 15k for Stoke - and there is no guarantee you get a top club at home anyway you are down to local derbies or top of the table clashes. Rule out the latter. That leaves an annual game against Brum or maybe Villa. £18k may be enough.

Ignore the £ sign on "18k"

 

[shmmeee]

The issue is the extra cost of making it a 24k stadium rather than 18k one, measured against the extra income from the games where the gate exceeds 18k. As Cup games don't do it - we had 15k for Stoke - and there is no guarantee you get a top club at home anyway you are down to local derbies or top of the table clashes. Rule out the latter. That leaves an annual game against Brum or maybe Villa. £18k may be enough.

Nonsense. As ROS has pointed out once segregation and the like is taken out an 18k stadium is really 15k and we’d likely be above that next season, let alone after five years in the Championship.

 

[shmmeee]

Also worth pointing out that it used to be the case (haven’t looked recently) that a new ground gives a 30% increase. We went from 16k last season at HR to 21.3k first season at the Ricoh. Almost exactly a third.

we’d likely be at 15/16k next year minimum, there’s every chance if we built a 20k stadium tomorrow it’d be too small.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

Also worth pointing out that it used to be the case (haven’t looked recently) that a new ground gives a 30% increase. We went from 16k last season at HR to 21.3k first season at the Ricoh. Almost exactly a third.

we’d likely be at 15/16k next year minimum, there’s every chance if we built a 20k stadium tomorrow it’d be too small.

And had we not have royally fucked everything up we'd have kept it up and followed the same trajectory as the other (similar in stature) clubs who made similar moves. Derby, Southampton, Stoke et al all had promotions, championships, cup wins, we had nothing until a couple of years ago, by which time we'd already successfully managed to disenfranchise big chunks of the fanbase via various stupendous examples of bad management. There is no justification in saying that we are any different to similar clubs apart from that we have been ran into the ground.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

The issue is the extra cost of making it a 24k stadium rather than 18k one, measured against the extra income from the games where the gate exceeds 18k. As Cup games don't do it - we had 15k for Stoke - and there is no guarantee you get a top club at home anyway you are down to local derbies or top of the table clashes. Rule out the latter. That leaves an annual game against Brum or maybe Villa. £18k may be enough.

But thats not true at all.

If you start at 18k then decide to build on, then you have 2x design, commissioning, certifications, the cost per m2 will be higher as its a much smaller manufacturing job & more bespoke- I'd say £4m. Build 24k from day one and the overall cost is much less, payback period on those extra seats is much shorter, and you're well equipped for the future without having to potentially choose between 2 new players or more seats at some stage. And your logic on crowds is nuts.

To be honest this is really basic stuff, costing this up I mean- and it just makes me think that its bullshit. I want it to happen, and the partnership makes a lot of sense, but the actual nuts & bolts of the ground itself- it reeks of someone making it up as they go along and throwing buzzwords like "expansion"/ "modular" around. Nobody would do it this way if they are all about costs & forward planning. As for "expansion"- how many clubs have you seen expand their grounds, even though there is a patent requirement? Liverpool is one, we're hardly Liverpool, Stoke did but it took years to bite the bullet. What makes us think that we'll start adding a few blocks of seats every time we have a good season then ripping them out if we go down?

I'm telling you- this view that "oh its ok, if we need them we'll throw up 5,000 more seats, no bother"- it doesn't work in reality, sounds great but it doesn't make any sense at all for us, practically or financially.

Therefore you're looking for a ground that makes sense and does not force you to budget for an expansion which you could have had on day one for lower cost, and which would have made sense anyway, so 18k (or 15k home seats) is bullshit, it really is.

 

[Gibbo]

Also worth pointing out that it used to be the case (haven’t looked recently) that a new ground gives a 30% increase. We went from 16k last season at HR to 21.3k first season at the Ricoh. Almost exactly a third.

we’d likely be at 15/16k next year minimum, there’s every chance if we built a 20k stadium tomorrow it’d be too small.

But thats not true at all.

If you start at 18k then decide to build on, then you have 2x design, commissioning, certifications, the cost per m2 will be higher as its a much smaller manufacturing job & more bespoke- I'd say £4m. Build 24k from day one and the overall cost is much less, payback period on those extra seats is much shorter, and you're well equipped for the future without having to potentially choose between 2 new players or more seats at some stage. And your logic on crowds is nuts.

To be honest this is really basic stuff, costing this up I mean- and it just makes me think that its bullshit. I want it to happen, and the partnership makes a lot of sense, but the actual nuts & bolts of the ground itself- it reeks of someone making it up as they go along and throwing buzzwords like "expansion"/ "modular" around. Nobody would do it this way if they are all about costs & forward planning. As for "expansion"- how many clubs have you seen expand their grounds, even though there is a patent requirement? Liverpool is one, we're hardly Liverpool, Stoke did but it took years to bite the bullet. What makes us think that we'll start adding a few blocks of seats every time we have a good season then ripping them out if we go down?

I'm telling you- this view that "oh its ok, if we need them we'll throw up 5,000 more seats, no bother"- it doesn't work in reality, sounds great but it doesn't make any sense at all for us, practically or financially.

Therefore you're looking for a ground that makes sense and does not force you to budget for an expansion which you could have had on day one for lower cost, and which would have made sense anyway, so 18k (or 15k home seats) is bullshit, it really is.

If I put in the word "marginal" the point is completely true. The extra marginal costs of building (and maintaining) space for an extra 6k.

We are delusional about the crowds City are likely to attract on a regular basis. If we sell out periodically I doubt if the owners will mind. As the table somewhere above showed, clubs at the bottom (where we are likely to be initially) attract 50% capacity - so I expect 12-13,000. But if you can't get more than 15k for an FA Cup tie against a Premier League team where there was a chance of winning, dream on if you think we'll get more than that on a regular basis to see a team that is struggling to stay up in the Championship. Crowds come if the side wins.....

I would prefer 24k, but if the maths say 18k, I can easily see why. And I would take 18k (I'd take 15k) if meant (1) owning the stadium, or a stake in it, (2) being shot of the Ricoh - which I have hated from day 1, let alone since Wasps took it on and (3) creating a pathway for SISU to sell the club

On a side note, could this arrangement with the UNI be like selling your house "with planning permission"?

 

[Ring Of Steel]

If I put in the word "marginal" the point is completely true. The extra marginal costs of building (and maintaining) space for an extra 6k.

We are delusional about the crowds City are likely to attract on a regular basis. If we sell out periodically I doubt if the owners will mind. As the table somewhere above showed, clubs at the bottom (where we are likely to be initially) attract 50% capacity - so I expect 12-13,000. But if you can't get more than 15k for an FA Cup tie against a Premier League team where there was a chance of winning, dream on if you think we'll get more than that on a regular basis to see a team that is struggling to stay up in the Championship. Crowds come if the side wins.....

I would prefer 24k, but if the maths say 18k, I can easily see why. And I would take 18k (I'd take 15k) if meant (1) owning the stadium, or a stake in it, (2) being shot of the Ricoh - which I have hated from day 1, let alone since Wasps took it on and (3) creating a pathway for SISU to sell the club

On a side note, could this arrangement with the UNI be like selling your house "with planning permission"?

You have zero justification is saying we are ‘delusional’, I have every justification in sayIng that bearing in mind everything that’s happened we get decent crowds which could and would be way way more. Historically we’re still bigger than Stoke yet you want a ground 12,000 smaller- what you say is ignorant of the various factors that took us to where we are.

Oh, and ‘marginal’- irrelevant unfortunately.

 

[shmmeee]

If I put in the word "marginal" the point is completely true. The extra marginal costs of building (and maintaining) space for an extra 6k.

We are delusional about the crowds City are likely to attract on a regular basis. If we sell out periodically I doubt if the owners will mind. As the table somewhere above showed, clubs at the bottom (where we are likely to be initially) attract 50% capacity - so I expect 12-13,000. But if you can't get more than 15k for an FA Cup tie against a Premier League team where there was a chance of winning, dream on if you think we'll get more than that on a regular basis to see a team that is struggling to stay up in the Championship. Crowds come if the side wins.....

I would prefer 24k, but if the maths say 18k, I can easily see why. And I would take 18k (I'd take 15k) if meant (1) owning the stadium, or a stake in it, (2) being shot of the Ricoh - which I have hated from day 1, let alone since Wasps took it on and (3) creating a pathway for SISU to sell the club

On a side note, could this arrangement with the UNI be like selling your house "with planning permission"?

Nuts. Sorry. We were over 15k every season since the Ricoh in the Championship. No idea what your obsession with the Stoke game is but playing a shit dull team even a Prem one starting from a low base in the early rounds of the cup proves the square root of fuck all.

15k wouldn’t even be right for a L1 CCFC side with no ambition.

 

[Frank Sidebottom]

I think the obvious solution is a 22k ish base stadium with retractable stands/roof (that extend backwards from the top of the stand) to bring the capacity up to 40k when needed.
Wouldn't be a new Cov stadium plan if retractable something isn't considered.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

I think the obvious solution is a 22k ish base stadium with retractable stands/roof (that extend backwards from the top of the stand) to bring the capacity up to 40k when needed.
Wouldn't be a new Cov stadium plan if retractable something isn't considered.

long as the funding isn’t retractable this time round...

I think some people are getting a bit carried away at what the money gets you, I’ve seen talk about retractable stands, expanded modules- it’s a football ground, not a space station. Why can’t we just have a decent sized football ground close to the pitch & designed to be loud. and leave the crazy engineering experiments for someone else to try out?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

There's a lot of single town/City clubs on the Championship list there. I wonder how much of an impact the lack of a strong local rivalry has on a team's support, if any. Or is that just more to do with City size/catchment area?

We don't really have a 2-way fierce local rivalry, not in the way a 2 club city does for example. I'm sure kids in Liverpool force each other to pick their allegiences on the playground at an early age, whereas if you're from a sizeable single club town or city perhaps their is a bit more apathy and the pressure is more on parents to get their kids hooked.

Didn't help Bradford tbh, and Bristol hasn't flown as a result either. Cities like Liverpool also suck the support from local teams in surrounding towns because they're successful. Birmingham City certainly didn't benefit from any rivalry either.

It basically boils down to if you win games or not!

 

[Frank Sidebottom]

long as the funding isn’t retractable this time round...

I think some people are getting a bit carried away at what the money gets you, I’ve seen talk about retractable stands, expanded modules- it’s a football ground, not a space station. Why can’t we just have a decent sized football ground close to the pitch & designed to be loud. and leave the crazy engineering experiments for someone else to try out?

It won't just be a football ground though, SISU will want to build something with 365 day revenue streams.

 

[Magwitch]

Although for me its a very big pinch of salt as to whether a new stadium is built but I live in hope, should one ever gets built it has be similar capacity to the Ricoh, this notion of 15/20k capacity then increase as and when will never happen, could we get regular 20/25000 plus away I think we could. We have had years of mediocrity here and the last few years with little hope, I would love to see us at the Ricoh when fans return to test the water.

 

[shmmeee]

Although for me its a very big pinch of salt as to whether a new stadium is built but I live in hope, should one ever gets built it has be similar capacity to the Ricoh, this notion of 15/20k capacity then increase as and when will never happen, could we get regular 20/25000 plus away I think we could. We have had years of mediocrity here and the last few years with little hope, I would love to see us at the Ricoh when fans return to test the water.

Thats the other side of the “show then were there” coin, the club needs to be in Cov to see the full potential. Basing it off five years in Brum would be a total shot in the dark if we’ve no idea how it’s impacted attendances.

 

[covmark]

Although for me its a very big pinch of salt as to whether a new stadium is built but I live in hope, should one ever gets built it has be similar capacity to the Ricoh, this notion of 15/20k capacity then increase as and when will never happen, could we get regular 20/25000 plus away I think we could. We have had years of mediocrity here and the last few years with little hope, I would love to see us at the Ricoh when fans return to test the water.

Have a day off mate. 15000 of us bouncing around in a 32000 seater is a shit match day experience.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

I like the Swedbank Stadion home of Malmo, single tier safe standing behind one goal and 2 tiers rest of the stadium. Capacity of around 24000, about right for CCFC I think.

 

[pusbccfc]

I like the Swedbank Stadion home of Malmo, single tier safe standing behind one goal and 2 tiers rest of the stadium. Capacity of around 24000, about right for CCFC I think.

That's class. Exactly what we need.

Safe standing is vital for a new build.

 

[chiefdave]

Safe standing is vital for a new build.

Even if its not allowed by the time any new stadium is built it would make sense to have the ground setup for it. Other grounds have seating that also allows safe standing so shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Even if its not allowed by the time any new stadium is built it would make sense to have the ground setup for it. Other grounds have seating that also allows safe standing so shouldn't be an issue.

Agree entirely and very easy to install with rail seating.