West Stand

[Bentley Bullet]

As a follow up to the thread expressing concern about the current away stand capacity restrictions, what's a bigger concern for me is the home capacity, which is surely considerably reduced since the closure of the West Stand North B section.

What if there is a demand in ticket sales that renders the club will lose money unless they reopen the section? Will they open it, and if so will those who were originally evicted from the area be given first option to return?

[Dagenham Rover]

1, of course they will
2, don't be so bloody daft

[MrFrost]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

[Donnywolf]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr .... but at least we beat them at Wembley (if they start bragging)

[Bentley Bullet]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

Has there been any official confirmation of this?

[MrFrost]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

Has there been any official confirmation of this?

Just what I've been told from a club employee.  They've reduced the capacity of the away end hence covering the first few rows of seats,  something to do again with the safety certificate.

A shame because if we ever do look like filling it the capacity is quite restricted now. 

[RedJ]

The capacity of the South Stand is also reduced because of the unallocated seating.

[bobjimwilly]

The capacity of the South Stand is also reduced because of the unallocated seating.

I thought it was reduced because of the big tv?

[IDM]

or both?

[RedJ]

Yes, both.

[silent majority]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

[silent majority]

The capacity of the South Stand is also reduced because of the unallocated seating.

The capacity, in theory, won't be reduced because of unallocated seating. If that stand has 4,000 seats then that's what its capacity is. However in practice trying to fill a stand with unallocated seating is a very difficult thing to do therefore the numbers will be cut for safety reasons, usually by about 10%.

There's nothing to stop the club doing individual events or games with allocated seating and therefore making use of the full 4,000 seats.

[MrFrost]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

Why else would you stop selling the first three rows of a particular stand?

[silent majority]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

Why else would you stop selling the first three rows of a particular stand?

But now you're just guessing. Why not wait and see if the first 3 rows are covered over at the Grimsby game?

[RTID!!!]

They will have to open it.

[Dagenham Rover]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

Why else would you stop selling the first three rows of a particular stand?

But now you're just guessing. Why not wait and see if the first 3 rows are covered over at the Grimsby game?

If they are uncovered why bother covering them when theres a couple of hundred and the proverbial dog

[silent majority]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

Why else would you stop selling the first three rows of a particular stand?

But now you're just guessing. Why not wait and see if the first 3 rows are covered over at the Grimsby game?

If they are uncovered why bother covering them when theres a couple of hundred and the proverbial dog

Part of stadium management strategy John, lots of clubs do it.

But the main point, as I've already stated, is that there is nothing at all wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium.

[Bentley Bullet]

I wonder if the club's guilty of some sort of cover-up?

 

[Bentley Bullet]

If supporters want to sit there, why keep them in the dark?

 

[Dagenham Rover]

The capacity of the stadium is no longer 15200, I'm led to believe it is around the 13800 mark due to the safety certificate 

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's nothing wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium, in fact the reverse is true.

Why else would you stop selling the first three rows of a particular stand?

But now you're just guessing. Why not wait and see if the first 3 rows are covered over at the Grimsby game?

If they are uncovered why bother covering them when theres a couple of hundred and the proverbial dog

Part of stadium management strategy John, lots of clubs do it.

But the main point, as I've already stated, is that there is nothing at all wrong with the safety certificate at the stadium.

It just seems daft, extra work etc for no real reason apart from somebody somewhere thinks ohh everybody else is doing it so we better (btw I'm not disputing theres nothing wrong whatsoever with the safety certificate) it just seems crazy, if the front rows can be uncovered when we are are expecting a fullish house  and then cover them up when theres a couple of hundred just seems daft.
  I totally understand when the  outer blocks are covered when theres only a few.  I'm not bothered Martyn it just seems a pointless execise

[silent majority]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

[MrFrost]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

They've not been sold to Grimsby either. Hence why their allocation was less than what we've given teams in the past. 

[silent majority]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

They've not been sold to Grimsby either. Hence why their allocation was less than what we've given teams in the past. 

Yes they have.

[MrFrost]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

They've not been sold to Grimsby either. Hence why their allocation was less than what we've given teams in the past. 

Yes they have.

Why is their allocation in the North Stand less then?

[Dagenham Rover]

Covering the outer blocks with netting controls and funnels the smaller crowd without the need for the bottom rows of the open block to be covered it just seems pointless

[silent majority]

Covering the outer blocks with netting controls and funnels the smaller crowd without the need for the bottom rows of the open block to be covered it just seems pointless

It cuts down the number of stewards in front of that section, therefore saving money.

[silent majority]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

They've not been sold to Grimsby either. Hence why their allocation was less than what we've given teams in the past. 

Yes they have.

Why is their allocation in the North Stand less then?

It isn't less in the North Stand.

[MrFrost]

DR, you agree its OK for the club to cover outer blocks when crowds are on the small side so its not OK to do the same for the front 3 rows? Surely the argument you put forward is the same? The idea behind netting of this sort is to effect crowd control without having to use stewards to do it. Supporters are channelled into the areas without netting, therefore side to side along the rows and then down the steps. It cuts steward numbers and therefore saves money.

No doubt the Grimsby game, or any game where we expect full capacity, uncovering the seats, be it outer blocks or the front 3 rows, makes economic sense to do so.

They've not been sold to Grimsby either. Hence why their allocation was less than what we've given teams in the past. 

Yes they have.

Why is their allocation in the North Stand less then?

It isn't less in the North Stand.

Yes it is.  They were allocated 3090. The allocation in this area used to be 3300

[stuey]

The capacity of the South Stand is also reduced because of the unallocated seating.

The capacity, in theory, won't be reduced because of unallocated seating. If that stand has 4,000 seats then that's what its capacity is. However in practice trying to fill a stand with unallocated seating is a very difficult thing to do therefore the numbers will be cut for safety reasons, usually by about 10%.

There's nothing to stop the club doing individual events or games with allocated seating and therefore making use of the full 4,000 seats.

That would explain why, despite the South Stand being advertised as 'sold out' for the Stoke game, i noticed quite a few empty seats.

[idler]

Maybe it's just to make it harder for fans to get right to the front.
Harder to get on the pitch and possibly incite home fans.