Snik-Snok

The ridiculous thing is that if any club were to install rail seats, they would not be allowed to use them for safety reasons, and yet if that same stadium was to host a rugby match, or music concert, or in fact anything other than a football match, they would be considered perfectly safe. If any club is serious about installing rail seats, surely there's enough to challenge the current legislation on a discriminatory basis. I still can't comprehend how so many authorities deem standing still as being dangerous. Meanwhile, jumping around like a loon when a goal goes in with the back of a plastic seat digging into your shins with people barging into you in considered perfectly safe.

There's no way they're going to go to the trouble of removing the roof, adding adding an additional tier above/behind an existing one(s), and then adding a new roof, with all the engineering complications, structural changes and expense that it'll entail, just for an extra 3 or 4 thousand seats. We'd be left with a tiny but very expensive new section which only contains about 7 rows, and still have the same problem that demand far exceeds supply. They've got to be looking at 40000+ surely. Since we returned to the Premier League, every game at the stadium has been full (with the exception of part of the away end a few times), and that's with an expensive membership scheme that only allows people a chance at buying a single seat, and makes it difficult for non members to get a ticket at all. Selling 30,000 season tickets is a reasonable target. then another 10,000 for non-season ticket holders, away fans and corporate means that 40,000 minimum for most games is achievable. A fair comparison is Sunderland. Capacity 48,000, average Premier League attendances were around 42,000. Rarely went below 40,000, usually full for the big games. With Swansea, Watford and Palace all looking to expand to 30,000 plus, and traditionally smaller clubs such as Brighton, Southampton and to a lesser extent Stoke, already at that 30,000 level (plus Derby and Cardiff City potentially coming up with bigger grounds than us), we need to elevate ourselves to the next level. As recent Premier League Champions, the most populous city in the East Midlands, a huge catchment area with no major clubs to the South until London and none to the east until Norwich, and with all three local rivals currently in a lower division, now is the time to tap into that.

1) Additional tiers on 3 sides of the ground (East, West and North stands), over-hanging the lower tier as much as possible (like the old double decker), to keep them close to the pitch, taking to capacity up to 45,000+. Add some nice touches such as an old style gable in the main stand roof. 2) A single-tier South Stand with a new lower pitched roof to hold in the noise. Set up some sort of membership making it clear it's ultras only (for want of a better word). Adults prices only. Unreserved seating (until safe-standing allowed) which would help get like-minding fans together and encourage those not interested to relocate. 3) Future proof the stadium by installing safe-standing throughout the South stand, and the back half of the lower tier of the East Stand. Safe-standing is a win/win for all. It's safer than standing in seated areas, the supporters want it, and football needs it. Those that want to stand will be able to, those that don't won't have people standing up in front of them. Something needs to happen to football in general. Nearly every ground is affected by a season ticket base growing older, and needs an injection of new blood but there's no room to fit them in. I've had a season ticket since my teens, and now in mid-40's. Those in their 40's then are now in their 60's or older. Ground are becoming sterile and something needs to change. We have the opportunity to take the lead in what football needs in general, the club could take the initiative and really give us a stadium to be proud of. In reality we'll end up with a huge extra tier bolted on behind the East Stand, miles from the pitch, with the same bland atmosphere.

Just been on to get my tickets, having had to move from L1. Loads of tickets left in all areas of the ground, so obviously a lot of season tickets holders that haven't bought their seats.

There's a lot of people who go to every away game that aren't on the scheme, and bearing in mind that the minimum requirement when the scheme was set up was 8+ points from the previous season (i.e. the final year in the Championship with 23 away game plus cup games), and some people on the scheme could have opted out of several games a season since, it means there could be a fair number of people not on the scheme with significantly more points than some people that are. Bearing that in mind, if there's about 900 tickets for Fleetwood after the corporates etc have had their allocation, and theres about 700 people on the automated ticket scheme (complete guess but the original number was 800 I believe so 700 not unrealistic), then that wouldn't be fair if that's leaves 200 tickets when there's probably significantly more than 200 people with a higher priority than some of the people on the automated scheme. That's the point I was trying to make. When the allocation is this small then why should people on the scheme potentially have priority over people with more points that aren't? Also it would mean people like Adam's friends who can't go might not bother buying tickets, and therefore someone who earnt the right to get them eg people with 250+ points would have a chance, instead of them receiving them by default and then offloading them to someone that maybe hasn't.

Personally, I think that when the allocation is so small (especially after the sponsors, box holders, directors, players and ticket office staff have had theirs), I don't think that the automated away ticket scheme should be applicable. Everyone (whether on the scheme or not) should need to buy their tickets, based only on priority points (like the European games). After all it only takes a few seconds online so hardly a major inconvenience. A lot of people with quite high prioirties would have missed out, whereas people on the scheme who can't go (or don't want to go) know that rather than go to the trouble of opting out, they can get their ticket which will be like gold dust and they can easily sell it on, meaning that someone with a higher priority misses out. Also, the selling bands should have been tighter. With such a small number of tickets I think it would have been fairer to go in increments of 5 not 10.

Kushiro and Yuta, thanks for the replies. I'll try and find a highlights show on TV whilst I'm out there. This'll be my 10th trip to Japan. We always go up to yamagata ken, to a town called nanyo, because my wife's from there. The scenary in the mountains in yamagata, Fukushima and Niigata prefectures is beautiful. I was there last summer and it was 35C by 9am, too hot to be outside. I went back last December and it was below freezing, giant icicles everywhere and there was at least half a metre of snow daily. I was clearing snow before breakfast every day, and by lunchtime it was knee deep again. This goes on for 3 months every year! The difference between summer and winter conditions is far more extreme than here.

Kushiro/Yuta, I'm going to Japan on Thursday for a fortnight. I'm not sure i'll have access to any subscription sports channels, but could you let me know which Channels (subscription or not) show premier league games live, or highlights? Hoping to catch the Bournemouth away game on tv there in some form if possible. I'd be ok in Tokyo because there's plenty of bars open late showing live football, but I'll be rural Yamagata ken, so my options will be limited. Hoping to get across to Sendai to watch Sendai vs Niigata if possible. I've watched 2 J League games live before, Urawa vs Niigata and Yamagata vs Shimizu S-Pulse, both a few years ago, and both games involved players who later joined us, Abe and Okazaki!