Leicester game - Ticket watch

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:52 pm

1 left!

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:23 am

Club just confirmed it is sold out

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:40 am

ALLEZ ALLEZ ALLEZZZZZ

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:45 am

Countdown to the tweet this afternoon when they say that limited tickets are available in the JHL....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:48 am

Still a cracking do to sell out v Leicester City though.

Think the months since the last home game has a lot to do with it though!

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:57 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Still a cracking do to sell out v Leicester City though.

Think the months since the last home game has a lot to do with it though!

I think four successive wins, still in 7th place and everyone talking about Europe has had a big effect.

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:59 am

It's strange being mid April and not worrying about either being relegated or whether we are going to make a promotion place.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:02 am

Great news, and another example of why we could really do with a slightly bigger ground. It's games like these where extra capacity would help us attract and convert new fans, the next generation, but not if they can't get in. We should be attracting them now whilst we are up there, in the limelight and doing well. It's so much harder attracting anyone when we're rubbish!

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:07 am

bfcwest wrote:Great news, and another example of why we could really do with a slightly bigger ground. It's games like these where extra capacity would help us attract and convert new fans, the next generation, but not if they can't get in. We should be attracting them now whilst we are up there, in the limelight and doing well. It's so much harder attracting anyone when we're rubbish!

But we have only sold out the day before the game.

I would rather see a jammed packed ground than have thousands of empty seats (see Ewood Park)

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:08 am

bfcwest wrote:Great news, and another example of why we could really do with a slightly bigger ground. It's games like these where extra capacity would help us attract and convert new fans, the next generation, but not if they can't get in. We should be attracting them now whilst we are up there, in the limelight and doing well. It's so much harder attracting anyone when we're rubbish!

Our biggest game of the season to date which comes after a long stint of no home games, a winning streak, and potentially all but sealing a European spot with a win - we sell out just over 24 hours before kick off.

Capacity is fine I think.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:26 am

For a family of 4 to sit together in seats with an ok view, how long ago would they had to have purchased tickets? Try WEEKS, not 24 hours before kick off. In fact it was down to singles when I looked about a week ago. So how many parents are going to let their 7 year old go on their tod?

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:36 am

And the problem with only ever having rubbish seats left for last minute 'walk-ons' is that it might ruin their first experience of going on Turf. Take your kids to their first ever Burnley match and if they end up getting soaked and not being able to see the action up the other half of the pitch, chances are they'll not be too keen to come back.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:07 am

bfcwest wrote:And the problem with only ever having rubbish seats left for last minute 'walk-ons' is that it might ruin their first experience of going on Turf. Take your kids to their first ever Burnley match and if they end up getting soaked and not being able to see the action up the other half of the pitch, chances are they'll not be too keen to come back.

So the club should save the best seats for newcomers/casuals! Plenty of decent seats still available for the Chelsea, Brighton and Bournemouth games.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:28 am

It's pretty obvious the rubbish seats will be the last to sell.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:42 am

Leisure wrote:So the club should save the best seats for newcomers/casuals! Plenty of decent seats still available for the Chelsea, Brighton and Bournemouth games.

No, the club should look to gradually adjust the ratio of more desirable seats to less desirable seats whilst at the same time increasing the capacity enough to cater for increased demand. We would be bringing the ground more up to date standard wise which we would have to do at some stage anyway.

At the moment we have too many bad seats and not enough good seats, and that's why we don't sell out more quickly and in turn is restricting the growth of our fan base. If the Bob Lord was the same size as the Longside then we would get much bigger gates and the fan base would build. We'd end up averaging maybe 26k. (I'm not suggesting replicating the Longside btw as I prefer single tier stands, just making a point.) I know you are going to say "but what if we get relegated, we will have a big half empty ground..." but that applies to any business and sports team that is trying to grow and it would all be relative if we did go down, as a percentage of fans would stay with us, so you need the total number of fans today to be bigger so more stay with us.

Ultimately, because the Bob Lord is so tiny, we don't have the right proportion of side on seats at a decent height. We have too many that are behind the goal or just too low down. Look around any ground that is not full and you'll see that it is mainly the low down / away from the centre seats that are unoccupied. The average fan wants to sit side on and central at a decent height so they can take the action in. Or behind the goal, central and at a decent height.

There are very few relatively successful clubs who have reduced their capacity so much over the last 30 years as Burnley. At the same time average attendances have gone up at relatively successful clubs over the same period. It just doesn't make sense what Burnley have done to Turf Moor and we are paying the price now that the goods times are here and missing the opportunity to increase our fan base.

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:08 pm

bfcwest wrote:No, the club should look to gradually adjust the ratio of more desirable seats to less desirable seats whilst at the same time increasing the capacity enough to cater for increased demand. We would be bringing the ground more up to date standard wise which we would have to do at some stage anyway.

At the moment we have too many bad seats and not enough good seats, and that's why we don't sell out more quickly and in turn is restricting the growth of our fan base. If the Bob Lord was the same size as the Longside then we would get much bigger gates and the fan base would build. We'd end up averaging maybe 26k. (I'm not suggesting replicating the Longside btw as I prefer single tier stands, just making a point.) I know you are going to say "but what if we get relegated, we will have a big half empty ground..." but that applies to any business and sports team that is trying to grow and it would all be relative if we did go down, as a percentage of fans would stay with us, so you need the total number of fans today to be bigger so more stay with us.

Ultimately, because the Bob Lord is so tiny, we don't have the right proportion of side on seats at a decent height. We have too many that are behind the goal or just too low down. Look around any ground that is not full and you'll see that it is mainly the low down / away from the centre seats that are unoccupied. The average fan wants to sit side on and central at a decent height so they can take the action in. Or behind the goal, central and at a decent height.

There are very few relatively successful clubs who have reduced their capacity so much over the last 30 years as Burnley. At the same time average attendances have gone up at relatively successful clubs over the same period. It just doesn't make sense what Burnley have done to Turf Moor and we are paying the price now that the goods times are here and missing the opportunity to increase our fan base.

I sit on the front row of the Bob Lord stand and love it so that will blow away your third paragraph.

It's all down to choice where you want to sit so how do you know where the 'average' fan wants to watch from?

And I am made up that we are paying the price for missing opportunities.

7th in the Premier League and just about to go on a European Tour.

Buy your tickets a week or two earlier next time perhaps?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:10 pm

The front row of the BL is over a metre above pitch level.

The front rows of the newer stands are essentially below pitch level

clitheroeclaret2 · Post by **clitheroeclaret2** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:21 pm

With bfcwest in some respects on this one. Most of the "best" seats are taken by season ticket holders, which is fair enough if you can commit to getting to nearly every game.
Often what walkons are left with are bad seats in the corners and really bad seats, ie out in the elements for 2hrs in winter down the front!

Maybe more of a differential in ticket prices for these would be an idea, say £10? Better that than swathes of empty seats

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:26 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:The front row of the BL is over a metre above pitch level.

The front rows of the newer stands are essentially below pitch level

So lets build another 5000 seats that will never be filled.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:26 pm

Why wouldn't they be filled?

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:29 pm

bfcwest wrote:No, the club should look to gradually adjust the ratio of more desirable seats to less desirable seats whilst at the same time increasing the capacity enough to cater for increased demand. We would be bringing the ground more up to date standard wise which we would have to do at some stage anyway.

At the moment we have too many bad seats and not enough good seats, and that's why we don't sell out more quickly and in turn is restricting the growth of our fan base. If the Bob Lord was the same size as the Longside then we would get much bigger gates and the fan base would build. We'd end up averaging maybe 26k. (I'm not suggesting replicating the Longside btw as I prefer single tier stands, just making a point.) I know you are going to say "but what if we get relegated, we will have a big half empty ground..." but that applies to any business and sports team that is trying to grow and it would all be relative if we did go down, as a percentage of fans would stay with us, so you need the total number of fans today to be bigger so more stay with us.

Ultimately, because the Bob Lord is so tiny, we don't have the right proportion of side on seats at a decent height. We have too many that are behind the goal or just too low down. Look around any ground that is not full and you'll see that it is mainly the low down / away from the centre seats that are unoccupied. The average fan wants to sit side on and central at a decent height so they can take the action in. Or behind the goal, central and at a decent height.

There are very few relatively successful clubs who have reduced their capacity so much over the last 30 years as Burnley. At the same time average attendances have gone up at relatively successful clubs over the same period. It just doesn't make sense what Burnley have done to Turf Moor and we are paying the price now that the goods times are here and missing the opportunity to increase our fan base.

The more capacity you have the more “bad seats” you create. There is only so many central seats you can have in a stand.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:32 pm

tybfc wrote:I sit on the front row of the Bob Lord stand and love it so that will blow away your third paragraph.

It's all down to choice where you want to sit so how do you know where the 'average' fan wants to watch from?

And I am made up that we are paying the price for missing opportunities.

7th in the Premier League and just about to go on a European Tour.

Buy your tickets a week or two earlier next time perhaps?

You sitting on the front row of the Bob Lord doesn't "blow away" my argument, especially as already stated, the Bob Lord front row is actually high up compared to 'bad seats'. But even if it wasn't, just because you sit somewhere doesn't prove anything, you are just one person. I said what the 'average' was. There are some fans who sit right behind the goal, so they can't see much at all, but they like it for some reason. But that would not be the most popular choice. That's why I said on average. Why are the better seats more expensive if they are not more desirable?!! It's like saying the average person wouldn't rather sit in business class than at the back of economy on a 14 hour flight if the tickets cost the same. You might find someone who chooses economy, but the more popular seats if they were all the same price, would be the business class ones.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:38 pm

Best seats go first, worst seats go last - that's life! There is already a price differential to recognise the 'poorer' seats. Don't know of any ground that has all 'best' seats. Whatever future development of the ground takes place it will still leave the 'poorer' view seats at pitch level in the JHL and JML. I don't know of any 'evidence' to suggest that it would be economically viable to provide a few thousand more seats, unless substantially more seats are given to the away team (other than those we would have to give due to the 10%/3000 rule). There's not much point in spending millions to increase the capacity if all that happens is people move from the existing 'poorer' seats to new 'better' seats. Interested to know how people feel we would fill an extra few thousand seats? UTC

tybfc · Post by **tybfc** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:38 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:Why wouldn't they be filled?

Because we don't have that many fans week in week out otherwise we would have sold out the ground in season ticket sales?

Wokingclaret · Post by **Wokingclaret** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:39 pm

"If the Bob Lord was the same size as the Longside then we would get much bigger gates"

Think you will find, that if the Bob Lord was that big, then back in 1996 the Longside wouldn't have been built that big. The new stands at a relative low cost in today's money has nearly put us in admin twice.

We were lucky, they built the new stands with a capacity of 22,500 as we were no where near filling it and it could have been much less.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:41 pm

tybfc wrote:Because we don't have that many fans week in week out otherwise we would have sold out the ground in season ticket sales?

There's a PL ruling preventing us from doing that.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:42 pm

Wokingclaret wrote:"If the Bob Lord was the same size as the Longside then we would get much bigger gates"

Think you will find, that if the Bob Lord was that big, then back in 1996 the Longside wouldn't have been built that big. The new stands at a relative low cost in today's money has nearly put us in admin twice.

We were lucky, they built the new stands with a capacity of 22,500 as we were no where near filling it and it could have been much less.

When they built those stands 20 years ago the chances of filling them were slim.

We now fill them multiple times a season.

Build bigger stands and in 20 years, we'll be filling those seats too.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:46 pm

Dyched wrote:The more capacity you have the more “bad seats” you create. There is only so many central seats you can have in a stand.

You are missing what I said, which was that the ratio between good and bad seats is wrong, so essentially we don't have enough of the seats people want to sit in. We have a tiny stand where more people prefer to sit. Make it bigger and by default the ratio adjusts and you get more desirable seats both in total and as a percentage of capacity. (And there are ways of having more seats centrally than out wide, see Huddesfield, plus I wasn't proposing more seats behind the goals anyway, so I don't know why you said what you said tbh.)

If you wanted to go a step further and actually reduce the number of bad seats (which is not what I said) then the Longside and Bee Hole shouldn't have seats coming down so far, they should stop higher like the Bob Lord. If you made the Bob Lord an 8000 single tier, you could take out the front 5 rows of both the lower tiers and move the pitch across, essentially centralising the pitch as it is currently not. This would also get more fans closer to the action as currently we have empty seats closest to the pitch in many areas (which proves my point). Moving the pitch would also allow extra space around the Bob Lord plot for the development / renovation.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:59 pm

The capacity at Burnley now is almost exactly what it was 25 years ago isn't it, and significantly more than it was 30 years ago when sections of the ground were out of bounds? So not sure where the idea the capacity of the ground now has dramatically reduced over the last 30 years has come from.

The capacity of the ground is fine. We get good occupancy for most games and sell out 6-7 times a year. That's pretty much optimum.

The requirement for ground improvements is really driven by increasing disability access (which we are doing as we speak) and potentially increasing corporate capacity (which might trigger some further development of the Bob Lord).

Apart from that, the case is thin. What you can make a case for is re-jigging the ground a bit to make better use of the space, and to free up lots of single seats into blocks so that people can access tickets as groups. Other clubs have done this, and it might be time to do this at Burnley. Arguably, it would make sense for the family area to be moved to the bottom tier of the Jimmy Mac, which apart from anything is closer to the mascots that the kids are supposed to be interacting with. Its also the least popular and cheapest area of the ground, which is where the majority of family areas are. Doing that would free up significant capacity in the upper tier, which would presumably be more attractive. But there will be people already in the family area who understandably object to this - unfortunately, there's absolutely no easy option.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:32 pm

bfcwest wrote:You are missing what I said, which was that the ratio between good and bad seats is wrong, so essentially we don't have enough of the seats people want to sit in. We have a tiny stand where more people prefer to sit. Make it bigger and by default the ratio adjusts and you get more desirable seats both in total and as a percentage of capacity. (And there are ways of having more seats centrally than out wide, see Huddesfield, plus I wasn't proposing more seats behind the goals anyway, so I don't know why you said what you said tbh.)

If you wanted to go a step further and actually reduce the number of bad seats (which is not what I said) then the Longside and Bee Hole shouldn't have seats coming down so far, they should stop higher like the Bob Lord. If you made the Bob Lord an 8000 single tier, you could take out the front 5 rows of both the lower tiers and move the pitch across, essentially centralising the pitch as it is currently not. This would also get more fans closer to the action as currently we have empty seats closest to the pitch in many areas (which proves my point). Moving the pitch would also allow extra space around the Bob Lord plot for the development / renovation.

You want to bulldoze the front rows of the longside/beehole move the pitch to add basically front rows to the bob lord? You basically have a longside where the bob lord is and visa versa.

I do get your point about good seating. We could have made improvements if a bit more thought had gone into the newer stands. But its nit just as simple as you say. Doing anything to the bob lord wouldn’t add many more desirable seats. A few extra rows may add a few hundred but you’ll gain far more less wanted seats.

Its why many new stadiums are made on oval shapes. To get fans in the corners closer to the action.

Take the kop end. Massive stand about 5 times the size of the cricket field. With probably the same amount of “good” seats.

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:33 pm

Average attendances for football have been going up and up and up for years. Football has never been so popular, especially the Premier league. The last time we were in the top league for a sustained period, our capacity was higher and our average was about the same as now. Yet the vast majority of the other clubs then are now averaging so much more and have bigger capacities because football is better attended than in the 70''s (and 80's and 90's). If we had the right ground with the right mix, then I think we should be looking at building to averages of nearly 30,000. Football is just more popular now than then, but our hard product isn't fit for growth. We've got so many of the ingredients right with the amazing work of Sean and the board, but the ground is the let-down that prevents us from growing fan wise when we finally have a chance due to our on field success. Look at the averages of teams that have invested in their ground whilst football has been becoming more and more popular. They go up.

Claretspice, with respect, I think you are ignoring what I am saying if you conclude that we have the right capacity. You don't know what the impact would be of us having the right capacity in the right ratio of seat type, because we don't have it!! And anyway, it is a long term thing that the club need to build, you can't just stand still if the market is increasing year on year because that means you are actually going backwards.

Our capacity was definitely late 30's when I was a kid, and I'm not that bloody old!! (well maybe I am!)

bfcwest · Post by **bfcwest** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:40 pm

Dyched wrote:You want to bulldoze the front rows of the longside/beehole move the pitch to add basically front rows to the bob lord? You basically have a longside where the bob lord is and visa versa.

I do get your point about good seating. We could have made improvements if a bit more thought had gone into the newer stands. But its nit just as simple as you say. Doing anything to the bob lord wouldn’t add many more desirable seats. A few extra rows may add a few hundred but you’ll gain far more less wanted seats.

Its why many new stadiums are made on oval shapes. To get fans in the corners closer to the action.

Take the kop end. Massive stand about 5 times the size of the cricket field. With probably the same amount of “good” seats.

I didn't suggest adding rows to front of Bob Lord, I said it would need to be a big single tier of 8000, so essentially it would either be a new stand or an extension to the tier going backwards and a new roof. You might be able to have a few rows added to the front, but that wasn't my point. Having a bigger Bob Lord serves two purposes: more 'better seats', plus the increased capacity it provides would enable us to 'fix' some of the problems of the rest of the ground such as getting rid of the seats that are below sea level, centralising the pitch, bringing seats with fans actually sat in closer to the pitch.

clitheroeclaret2 · Post by **clitheroeclaret2** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:53 pm

Leisure wrote:Best seats go first, worst seats go last - that's life! There is already a price differential to recognise the 'poorer' seats. Don't know of any ground that has all 'best' seats. Whatever future development of the ground takes place it will still leave the 'poorer' view seats at pitch level in the JHL and JML. I don't know of any 'evidence' to suggest that it would be economically viable to provide a few thousand more seats, unless substantially more seats are given to the away team (other than those we would have to give due to the 10%/3000 rule). There's not much point in spending millions to increase the capacity if all that happens is people move from the existing 'poorer' seats to new 'better' seats. Interested to know how people feel we would fill an extra few thousand seats? UTC

So yes there is a price differential between the best seats in the house, which are obviously snapped up pre season and the remainder. Just £10!
Nowhere near enough for the comparison in view, comfort etc

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:06 pm

clitheroeclaret2 wrote:So yes there is a price differential between the best seats in the house, which are obviously snapped up pre season and the remainder. Just £10!
Nowhere near enough for the comparison in view, comfort etc

How much cheaper do you feel that they should be?

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:40 pm

tybfc wrote:It's strange being mid April and not worrying about either being relegated or whether we are going to make a promotion place.

You have to love a boring season.

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:44 pm

bfcwest wrote:Great news, and another example of why we could really do with a slightly bigger ground. It's games like these where extra capacity would help us attract and convert new fans, the next generation, but not if they can't get in. We should be attracting them now whilst we are up there, in the limelight and doing well. It's so much harder attracting anyone when we're rubbish!

An old marketing ploy is putting up the sold out signs when the event is not.
Not so easy at a football match, as Arsenal are discovering, but still effective. Folk who try and can't get on try earlier next time.
The Chairman has said 2 years consolidation before decisions on the ground are made.

clitheroeclaret2 · Post by **clitheroeclaret2** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:49 pm

Leisure wrote:How much cheaper do you feel that they should be?

A question for the marketing department, whatever it takes to fill them I guess

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:02 pm

claretspice wrote:The capacity at Burnley now is almost exactly what it was 25 years ago isn't it, and significantly more than it was 30 years ago when sections of the ground were out of bounds? So not sure where the idea the capacity of the ground now has dramatically reduced over the last 30 years has come from.

The capacity of the ground is fine. We get good occupancy for most games and sell out 6-7 times a year. That's pretty much optimum.

The requirement for ground improvements is really driven by increasing disability access (which we are doing as we speak) and potentially increasing corporate capacity (which might trigger some further development of the Bob Lord).

Apart from that, the case is thin. What you can make a case for is re-jigging the ground a bit to make better use of the space, and to free up lots of single seats into blocks so that people can access tickets as groups. Other clubs have done this, and it might be time to do this at Burnley. Arguably, it would make sense for the family area to be moved to the bottom tier of the Jimmy Mac, which apart from anything is closer to the mascots that the kids are supposed to be interacting with. Its also the least popular and cheapest area of the ground, which is where the majority of family areas are. Doing that would free up significant capacity in the upper tier, which would presumably be more attractive. But there will be people already in the family area who understandably object to this - unfortunately, there's absolutely no easy option.

The family area is full to capacity, if you are going to move it then it needs to be to a bigger area, not a smaller one. BTW i've sat in there since the stand was built, and i aint moving !

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:29 pm

claretandy wrote: BTW i've sat in there since the stand was built, and i aint moving !

Have you not been bored sat there with no matches played for 6 weeks?

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:42 pm

claretandy wrote:The family area is full to capacity, if you are going to move it then it needs to be to a bigger area, not a smaller one. BTW i've sat in there since the stand was built, and i aint moving !

It would be quite rare for someone to have legitimately had a ticket in the family stand since it was built though - don't you have to have an adult accompanied by an under 18?

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:45 pm

bfcwest wrote:Claretspice, with respect, I think you are ignoring what I am saying if you conclude that we have the right capacity. You don't know what the impact would be of us having the right capacity in the right ratio of seat type, because we don't have it!! And anyway, it is a long term thing that the club need to build, you can't just stand still if the market is increasing year on year because that means you are actually going backwards.

Our capacity was definitely late 30's when I was a kid, and I'm not that bloody old!! (well maybe I am!)

I stand to be corrected, but I'm virtually sure the last time Turf Moor's capacity was 30,000 was in the mid-70s. It was definitely about 21/22000 when I started going at the turn of the 90s, and I know that was an increase in the capacity in 1987.

I understand the argument that attendances generally have gone up since the 70s. But I'm not sure that necessarily applies to Burnley. We're a relatively small club and in an area that has not got bigger or wealthier since the 70s (in fact, arguably the reverse is true). In the 70s, our attendances included modest attendances against the smaller clubs offset by much bigger attendances against the likes of Leeds, no doubt supplemented by substantial travelling support. Even if we increased the ground capacity significantly to allow for bigger gates for the big clubs now, we'd end up with a ground half full even in the Premier League.

If other drivers - corporate revenues in particular - mean the cost benefit stacks up for some redevelopment, an increase to 25k might make sense. But there's no evidence to suggest 30k is attainable on anything other than an exceptional basis, and it would be a millstone round our necks when the day comes that we are relegated.

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Have Leicester sold out?

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:10 pm

Steve1956 wrote:Have Leicester sold out?

Sold out a bit ago I think.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:15 pm

claretspice wrote:It would be quite rare for someone to have legitimately had a ticket in the family stand since it was built though - don't you have to have an adult accompanied by an under 18?

I was 16 when it was built, i'm now 38 and take my 10 and 7 year old on, next question.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:09 pm

Why the f..ck Liverpool made anfield bigger and spurs are increasing capacity is beyhond me should they be relegated there will be lots of empty seats.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:16 pm

claretandy wrote:I was 16 when it was built, i'm now 38 and take my 10 and 7 year old on, next question.

When you reached 18, until you started taking your kids on, by the rules should you have been allowed to stay in There? Genuine question.

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:20 pm

claretspice wrote:When you reached 18, until you started taking your kids on, by the rules should you have been allowed to stay in There? Genuine question.

I have season tickets in the family stand with my 20 year old son. The woman who sits next to me is on her own and in her 50s. A bloke who sits behind me is on his own and in his 70s.

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:27 pm

claretandy wrote:The family area is full to capacity, if you are going to move it then it needs to be to a bigger area, not a smaller one. BTW i've sat in there since the stand was built, and i aint moving !

The family area may officially be full to capacity but - regrettably on occasions like this - it’s never actually full, mainly because of people getting free season tickets for kids who hardly ever go.

I actually think the club needs to rethink this policy (and I speak as a dad of an 8 year old who goes more often than not) maybe lowering the adult price and charging £50-100 for u10 season tickets - enough to deter people from taking the p!55.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:33 pm

So it seems that one reason the family area is full is because lots of people have tickets in there who possibly shouldn't. I don't know how big that issue is but if it's widespread, it might in itself be a good reason for a review and that review might in itself reveal we have a bigger spare capacity than we think.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:37 pm

taio wrote:I have season tickets in the family stand with my 20 year old son. The woman who sits next to me is on her own and in her 50s. A bloke who sits behind me is on his own and in his 70s.

And that's the reason why it's really not the family stand anymore. I can understand people who have been in there for years and their children have now grown up (and maybe don't even have a season ticket now) not wanting move out of there but that's the only way that new families will be able to get seats in there. It's designatged the family stand and to me that means adults and young children, which is not the case now. I've put my tin hat on!