Snik-Snok

You can't not win the ballot though. Its not to decide IF you go to a game in the cycle, but WHICH game within the games cycle you go to. If the games cycle is 3 games, everyone will go to 1 of those 3 games, assuming you apply for all 3. Once you 'win' a ballot, you can't enter the ballot for any of the remaining games in the cycle. If it's a 3 game cycle for the whole season, then basically everyone will get 5 or 6 games each. This ensures everyone who pays the £70 will be able to go to at least 1 game in the cycle, as long as you apply for each game. If it's e.g. Brighton, Fulham and Liverpool in a 3 games cycle and a lot of people decide to just apply for the last game, then some will miss out. That will be the chance they take.

If anyone wants an idea of what it might be like, check out the J League (Japan) on Free Sports, Sky channel 422 I think. Live games there, and highlights show repeated several times a week. Approx. 1 in 4 seats occupied, everyone wearing a mask, seems to be working OK. I would imagine in England they would give all season ticket holders the option to opt out until stadiums are allowed to operate at full capacity, with their season ticket seats held for them of course, whether it be for 3 months or 3 years. Let's say that a quarter of season ticket holders opt out, bearing in mind a lot are elderly, then it may reduce it from approx 24000 to around 18000. Then they would then say those remaining will go to e.g. 1 game in 4, with a random ballet taking place before each set of 4 games to allocate games to people. If the amount of people allowed in increases, then it would change to 1 in 3 games, then 1 in 2 etc. until further notice, with no away fans.

I've not received mine yet.

A new development would likely to involve some corporate seating etc. in the east stand, but rather than those being very high up in the new tier, I'd have thought they might make those facilities and lounges etc. linked to sections of the lower tier, and bump up the prices dramatically in those blocks. That survey a few months ago was basically focusing on which areas they could get away with bumping up the prices in.

Yes, I meant approx. 3000 additional tickets, on top of those currently available (after season tickets, aways fans, corporates etc), but they are already selling out each game. Selling 7,000 seats to non season ticket holders per game, of which only around 3,000 will be in additional to what we currently sell out each game, should be easily achievable, surely. This is assuming that a) the number of new season tickets available is around 7,000 (may in reality be a bit less), and b) those season tickets do indeed sell out.

10,000 more seats would mean approx. 7,000 or maybe more season tickets available (I'm not sure what the rules are but I'm assuming the number of season tickets being capped at around 2/3 of capacity). Those would sell out without doubt, so in reality it'll only be around 3,000 seats available each game which I think would sell out pretty much every game whilst we're in the Premier League.

If it's SK1 then it means people in SK2 near SK1, who would be entitled to sit, wouldn't be able to see the right hand side of the pitch (from their viewpoint). It would need to be in the corner, G1 and some of SK1, but then it would be limited to only about 2,000. Better option would be, as Shrewsbury have done, to convert the back x amount of rows of the whole south stand, the initial amount of rows depending on demand, and then convert more rows over time with the intention of eventually having the entire end with rail seats (as Spurs and Wolves currently have) in readiness for when standing is officially allowed, which is only a matter of time. Those that don't want to stand would need to, in the short term, relocate to seats further forward vacated by those moving back to the rail seats (and long term elsewhere in the stadium). Ultimately, even if the whole stand is standing it would only be around 20% of the overall capacity (assuming expansion to 40,000+) so is not an unreasonably large proportion as a whole. Having said that, unfortunately as we seem to be the only Premier league club that's not shown any interest or support for any standing, I wouldn't be surprised if the club have no intention whatsoever to install it. They had a great opportunity to try something different with the Birmingham Cup game (as I mentioned in the Wigan standing section topic) but chose the same as usual to hand over the most vocal part of the ground to the away fans, with no attempt to compensate for it, and so the atmosphere will be terrible. It once again demonstrates the lack of interest from the club in being proactive in trying to breathe some life back into the stadium.

This is going to be embarrassing assuming that both Coventry or Birmingham will take their full allocation. Its always really annoyed me that we, as a club, quite happily hand over the only vocal area of the ground (as far as away fans are concerned anyway as from L1 I've never once been able to hear SK1 and therefore there's no doubt the away fans can't either), and hand it over to the away fans, leaving everyone in that block to then be dotted around the rest of the stadium. It'll be 4500 noisy away fans in a stadium that's otherwise silent, like the Derby FA cup game a couple of years ago. This game would be a really good opportunity to try something different. Bear in mind that a midweek night game against not particularly attractive opponents means that there will be a lot of family end season ticket holders not taking their seats. Option 1: instead of hand over L1 and some K to away fans, give the family end to the away fans instead, like we've done before with West brom in the league Cup a few years ago. Therefore, reducing the number of people forced to move, as L1 and K won't be affected, and many of those in the family end wouldn't be going anyway. Some of the normal away corner can be sold to home fans, therefore potentially extending L1 into a larger singing section (potentially Union fs could relocate there for 1 game). Option 2: even better, give the opposition the normal away end, and then for one game make the family end the designated singing section, like the Wigan game should have been (before the club messed up by not announcing it and then subsequently selling tickets there to people not knowing about it). Again, union fs could relocate there for 1 game, as could those in L and K.

I've been to games in various countries, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic, Japan, Turkey and every time I go I'm so envious of what they have. It frustrates me so much that football is supposed to be about entertainment and enjoyment but those running it seem determined to prevent it. Leicester seem to be one of the biggest culprits in this regard. Ever since the stadium move, the various owners and authorities between them appear to have deliberately suppressed any attempt to get any proper atmosphere. Unfortunately, whereas many clubs have taken proactive steps to improve matters e.g. Derby, Wolves, Huddersfield, Middlesbrough, Leicester seem to be the opposite. As far as I know they are the only club to have refused to hold a safe standing roadshow (apparently, based on what I've read on here in the past), and Susan Whelen's comments in the fans committee meeting last year shows both a complete lack of understanding about it as well as demonstrating no interest whatsoever it seriously considering it. Whilst the current owners have been brilliant for this football club, they (or those tasked with running the club) do appear to be lacking an understanding of football culture. This is demonstrated with the ufs section last week, when not only did the club fail to inform supporters (a single sentence on the ticket info page would have been enough, so that interested people could join in, and those not interested could avoid it), but they then opened the block up to general sale, causing issues with people then unwittingly being right in the middle of that section. There's a clear move to bring back standing areas. Nearly all supporters group surveys are strongly in favour, all political parties bar the conservatives had said they will allow it, and the tories themselves are supposedly reviewing it. Even those that prefer to sit can surely see the benefit of having an area where those that stand up and block their view can relocate to. Most all-seater grounds in the country now have large sections of people standing, and most away ends are almost completely stood up. The regulations have changed to now allow rails to be installed for safety which essentially give the all clear for unofficial standing. Clubs are preparing for it, wolves now have about 8,000 standing in rail seats behind the goal, spurs new ground has about 15,000 rail seats. Everton's new ground will have about 15,000 standing behind one goal. Others grounds will follow without doubt. If the club do not prepare and get ready for it then they will be left behind. They should be looking long term to make one end all standing (probably about 8,000 spaces which assuming an extension goes ahead will only be about 20% of the stadium), plan in advance and start to work out a phased plan that will allow people to relocate to where they'd prefer. Good luck you ufs guys, keep up the good work, but unless there's a u-turn from within the club then I can't see much changing soon...

Ah, I didn't notice that!

Just saw Liverpool's 2nd goal on MOTD. For a player to be onside, there needs to be 2 opponents between him and the goal (one of which is usually the goalkeeper). For that goal, Foster had come forward to deal with the anticipated shot from Origi, so at the time Origi hit the ball forward, a Watford defender was marginally behind (i.e. nearer the goal), Foster, with Salah in between them. However the VAR line was drawn from the defender furthest back, not the 2nd furthest back defender (Foster). Surely that's wrong isn't it? If the line was drawn from the 2nd furthest defender from goal, Salah is offside.

Bottom tier sold out. About 250 tickets left in the 2 main Upper tier blocks. Small upper tier corner block yet to go on sale, as far as I know. At the rate they're selling, may only be a handful left tomorrow. For some reason they've decided to be quite liberal with the priority bands for this game, meaning they're selling rapidly.

Unreserved seating, first time time in years as far as I can remember (apart from Copenhagen and Porto).

A friend of mine (who's a season ticket holder) hasn't got one. He said he's checked his junk mail, but never received it. His LCFC account has his correct email address, and he gets other emails from them.

The main problem is the 50 points per year for season ticket holders, which is skewing it unfairly. Those that go to the most away games should earn the higher priority. Somebody who's had a season ticket for years that hardly bothers with away games, maybe does one once every 2 years, will have a higher priority than someone who got a season ticket 2 years ago and has managed to get tickets for half the away games since. The second person will take years for them to catch up.

It's interesting all this talk of German standing areas. I've been to a few stadiums (Bayern, Schalke, Frankfurt, Dortmund, Hertha Berlin). Most of the standing areas are terraces rather than rail-seats, and even the rail seats areas are unreserved. People talk about the yellow wall in dortmund as a prime example of rail seats, but the front two-thirds or so is terracing. Only the back section is rail seating. Dortmund and Schalke terraces attached. You can drink beer on them as well which is great.

Whatever happens regarding the potential new features in the stadium, at least this survey shows there's some movement on it at last. I get the feeling that they won't be doing this on the cheap and that what we'll get is going to be good. I'd love to see some (hopefully) large areas of standing areas introduced. However, it still worries me that a lot of the people responding will reply negatively towards it. This topic has shown that even amongst people interested in it, there's still a lot of confusion about how it works. I suspect as usual, those that prefer sit will have the usual "I don't want to stand" reaction and be against it, as they either believe that a) they will be forced to stand or b) it will mean people would be standing in front of them. Those that are strongly against are often the same people that complain when someone is standing in front of them, therefore they are actually benefiting hugely from it as this would resolve that. It's like turkeys voting for Christmas. It would be good if the club had provided a bit more details of how it could be implemented, and the potential benefits e,g, A section (or sections) of the ground would be installed with 'safe-standing' barriers, i.e. with a waist high rail in front of each 'seat'. People in those areas would stand throughout the match (it would not be an area where you could choose to sit or stand) Seats would remain in place, but be locked in an upright position, and used as a 'location' i.e. for the row/seat number on the ticket. The seats will remain in place because some events (European games etc.) may require an all-seater stadium, so by 'unlocking' them, it becomes a seated area. People that want to stand will be able to (although I suspect any standing section will be nowhere big enough to meet demand) People that want to sit won't be blighted by people standing in front of them as they will now have their own section Standing against a waist high barrier is safer than standing against a shin high barrier. Potentially (depending on the regulations) it could become unreserved, which is a huge benefit which rarely gets mentioned because a) friends can get together (expecially when with non-season ticket holders who have a single match ticket), b) people can choose to stand in their preferred place i.e. near the front/back c) it encourages people to get to the stadium earlier to get a god spot, which in turn leads to the potentially for some pre-match noise, like it used to be (and increases food/drink income within the stadium) Potentially (again depending on the regulations) if they implement it as in other countries then there could be 1.5 people for every seat (because with the seat up, there's more room) e.g. if a row has 100 seats then when it's in standing mode then 150 can fit in, which is why clubs in Germany etc. have higher attendances for Europeans games. I find it absolutely bizarre that anyone could be against it.

Surely the ideal scenario would be for the whole of the south stand to ultimately be converted to standing. There'll be enough room around the other 3 sides of the ground for those that prefer to sit. A nice new low roof to hold the noise in would be nice too. Personally, with another tier being added, I'll like to also see the back half of the current East stand (or lower tier as it will become) converted to standing too. Shift the away fans down to the other end of the end stand too, and it would be perfect.

Hopefully it'll be like at Fulham last year when they tried to give us all an inflatable clap stick thing and nobody used it. I won't be wearing my hat, but I'll probably keep it and give it to my wife.

Assuming that it's going to be at least a couple of years before they get this done, they could do a separate phase one (next summer) to increase capacity by dropping the pitch down a couple of metres, similar (but a smaller scale) to what they did at Man City's ground before they moved in after the Commonwealth games. It would mean they'd be able to add (at a guess) 6 to 8 more rows all the way around (maybe about 2000 seats), with the added bonus of getting the supporters closer to the pitch because there's at least 10 metres from row A to the pitch. It would mean digging up the undersoil heating, lowering the dug outs, having a slope/steps down from the tunnel etc. but wouldn't affect the structure of the stadium (therefore relatively little cost) and surely benefits would outweigh costs. Those at the front might get a bit wet when it's raining though, unless they can extend the roof outwards a bit (which might increase the cost a bit).

That was one of the most bizarre penalties I've ever seen. Strachan walked up, bent down and pretended to re-spot the ball, then with his fingers about an inch from the ball jabbed out a leg and toe-poked it into the corner of the net. Can't believe it's 30 years ago.

That's the game that springs to mind for me, when Mark Venus won it with that last minute screamer from about 30 yards out. 2-0 down after 82 mins and won it 3-2.

It wasn't announced at half time, and any announcement in the stadium pre-match must have been at least 20 mins before kick off because otherwise I would have heard it. Apparently it was announced in the days before on the clubs social media (which I don't use), and on the website which I hadn't had reason to use prior to that game, so as far as I was concerned I was completly unaware. Several people who I asked were also unaware. It was ridiculous of the club to move it from the traditional last game of the season and not announce it within the stadium just prior to kick off, or during half time, or towards the end of the game, or just after the final whistle.

Should have played against Cardiff when they were sitting deep and we needed somebody to create something in small pockets of pace. Completely unsuited to today where we're sitting deep and trying to counter attack. Puel's got his selections for both games the wrong way round, and it's not doing Ghezzal any favours.

I quite like Ghezzal. Yes he's slow, one-footed, and is yet to adapt to the physicality of the Premier League (although that will improve with game time), he's technically good, and suited to Puel's 4231. For home games against weaker teams that sit deep, where the creative players are expected to create something in a congested area, he's far better suited than Albrighton and especially Gray. I would have preferred him to have started against Cardiff instead of Gray. I like Adrien Silva too, technically good, always looking for the quick forward pass, and playing those little triangle passes with the likes of Maddison and Ricardo that'll open teams up. I still think our best performance, not result, of the season was Man Utd away and Silva was central to that. He just needs a run of games to get his fitness up and adapt to the league. To me he seems a player that would fit Puel's system perfectly, but hasn't had a look in. Very strange.