A bit worrying

[rabidbee]

Did anybody ever respond to my point about ateendences before and after 1998?

[Dirk Gently]

Can somebody please confirm who was right all along please?

That depends on what the question is - different people are now answering different questions.

But, to try to summarise the way I understand it, the crux of the argument is just what level of payback you need to be sure of getting before making an investment in the expansion.

Schards etc would like to see a very high proportion of the extra space (if not all of it ) being filled for every game before investig in the extra capacity, whilst others say that as long as at least some of the extra capacity is being used then it's still worthwhile doing - you just get the payback at a slower rate. So essentially it's a debate which will depend upon people's personal attitude to risk and investment.

(Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone, but that's the way I read this argument.)

Then, of course, the whole argument is rendered academic whilst we are not in Tier 1. (At least I hope everyone would agree with that)

And just to complicate it, there are people who don't look at things in a purely financial way and try and take into account other aspects - personally, I think if it had been done then we would have stayed up, because the boost of visibly seeing investment in the club's future and a vote of confidence in the team would have been the little boost that would have gained us an extra point. But, of course, that's purely a personal opinion and I have absolutely nothing I can back that up with!

[rabidbee]

Can somebody please confirm who was right all along please?

Dirkers is always right.

[Schards#2]

Can somebody please confirm who was right all along please?

That depends on what the question is - different people are now answering different questions.

But, to try to summarise the way I understand it, the crux of the argument is just what level of payback you need to be sure of getting before making an investment in the expansion.

Schards etc would like to see a very high proportion of the extra space (if not all of it ) being filled for every game before investig in the extra capacity, whilst others say that as long as at least some of the extra capacity is being used then it's still worthwhile doing - you just get the payback at a slower rate. So essentially it's a debate which will depend upon people's personal attitude to risk and investment.

(Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone, but that's the way I read this argument.)

Then, of course, the whole argument is rendered academic whilst we are not in Tier 1. (At least I hope everyone would agree with that)

And just to complicate it, there are people who don't look at things in a purely financial way and try and take into account other aspects - personally, I think if it had been done then we would have stayed up, because the boost of visibly seeing investment in the club's future and a vote of confidence in the team would have been the little boost that would have gained us an extra point. But, of course, that's purely a personal opinion and I have absolutely nothing I can back that up with!

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea. However, I don't think we would even in the prem and, in the current successful Championship campaign, I would guess we are averaging around 20,000. In an unsuccessful one it would be about 16,000.

As important as the financial argument, for me, is the impact on the matchday experience. Watching games in virtually full stadia is for me a more fulfilling experience than watching in a half empty, or even 2/3rds empty one. I'm sure banks of empty seats such as you see at the likes of Coventry and Southampton must have a demotivating effect on the team too.

As for your second point, I believe there is at least one poster who believes we should expand in Tier 1 but he is, admittedly, a special case.

[Sun Tzu]

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

Averaging 26k in a 24k capacity stadium would be quite some trick to pull off...

[Deathy]

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

Averaging 26k in a 24k capacity stadium would be quite some trick to pull off...

You'll just have to budge your fat ass up.

[Schards#2]

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

Averaging 26k in a 24k capacity stadium would be quite some trick to pull off...

The word "could" appears to have escaped you.

[Sun Tzu]

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

Averaging 26k in a 24k capacity stadium would be quite some trick to pull off...

The word "could" appears to have escaped you.

No, it hasn't.
But thanks for the suggestion.

[The 17 Bus]

With no expansion I cannot see us buying more expensive players, with no expansion we will not succeed long term in the prem, with vision and sense we could well find that we have a 30k Stadium, (and no one says go 38k on this thread), and be able to maintain a position in the top 20 of the English game.

It appears that had we been thought to be safe around this point last season the extension would have gone ahead, so it could well be that as we looking good, the next 3 games could see the decision announced.

If football does see a downturn in attendances as predicted in many places then we will need to cut prices to get bums on seats, just perhaps we could go silly and do a Bradford, sell cheap seats for all games, sell well in advance and perhaps income could be maintained.

[Great Knolly]

How much effect would reducing ticket prices have on attendance ? Or do people just choose to go or not regardless of the price. Taking me as an example ! I reckon if the price were reduced to £18 or below, I might attend a couple more games a season. £2-3 reduction probably wouldn't be enough to change my behaviour.

Would the club countenance growing the stadum and reducing the ticket price in an attempt to get more in.
Even with the reduced price, the extra customers (if there were any) would still buy the over-priced crap food and drink. They would have to have paid for a membership card. They might buy a shirt or 2 in the expanded megastore. Or the new 2nd megastore under the East stand.

[Platypuss]

Is it worth spending £15million to accomodate these five games which will only take place on the assumption we remain in the premiership? The answer is surely no. I'd be interested to hear the justification of your opinion.

As our esteemed leader appears to be trousering all the transfer money at the moment I can't think of a better use of 15 mill.

Agreed. Schards seems to be quite adept at avoiding that point, however.

[Schards#2]

With no expansion I cannot see us buying more expensive players, with no expansion we will not succeed long term in the prem, with vision and sense we could well find that we have a 30k Stadium, (and no one says go 38k on this thread), and be able to maintain a position in the top 20 of the English game.

It appears that had we been thought to be safe around this point last season the extension would have gone ahead, so it could well be that as we looking good, the next 3 games could see the decision announced.

If football does see a downturn in attendances as predicted in many places then we will need to cut prices to get bums on seats, just perhaps we could go silly and do a Bradford, sell cheap seats for all games, sell well in advance and perhaps income could be maintained.

I think Spacey was talking 38K.

The reason given for the decision not to proceed was the price of steel rather than the league position. Steel is now considerably cheaper but it doesn't seem to have prompted a rethink. I would be staggered if the club announce commencement of the work ever, let alone in the next few weeks. I would doubt it's even on the agenda.

There's only 11 sides averaging 30,000 or more this season, it's hard see that Reading as a town has the fanbase to add to this even if prices were significantly reduced.

[Schards#2]

Is it worth spending £15million to accomodate these five games which will only take place on the assumption we remain in the premiership? The answer is surely no. I'd be interested to hear the justification of your opinion.

As our esteemed leader appears to be trousering all the transfer money at the moment I can't think of a better use of 15 mill.

Agreed. Schards seems to be quite adept at avoiding that point, however.

You're going to have to explain to me what the point is. I've long given up reading anything posted by Royal with Cheese.

[Mr Angry]

Am I the only person who is a bit confused by 2 seemingly diametrically opposed points of view, expressed by the same poster??

How can this statement:

"Madejski - clearly, his heart is not in it to the extent it was previously. He would love to sell out but can't find a buyer. He will keep the club sound and stable but has no intention of investing further funds or trying to push the club forwards."

be made by the same person who seems most vehemently opposed to ever expanding the stadium unless there is a consistent average that is higher than the current maximum gate.



In other words, how can someone be accused of lacking ambition and not wanting to invest further funds in the club also be castigated for, er.... having ambition and wanting to invest further funds in the club?

[Schards#2]

Am I the only person who is a bit confused by 2 seemingly diametrically opposed points of view, expressed by the same poster??

How can this statement:

"Madejski - clearly, his heart is not in it to the extent it was previously. He would love to sell out but can't find a buyer. He will keep the club sound and stable but has no intention of investing further funds or trying to push the club forwards."

be made by the same person who seems most vehemently opposed to ever expanding the stadium unless there is a consistent average that is higher than the current maximum gate.

In other words, how can someone be accused of lacking ambition and not wanting to invest further funds in the club also be castigated for, er.... having ambition and wanting to invest further funds in the club?

Disappointing that you would post such a purile comment.

[Thaumagurist*]

Am I the only person who is a bit confused by 2 seemingly diametrically opposed points of view, expressed by the same poster??

How can this statement:

"Madejski - clearly, his heart is not in it to the extent it was previously. He would love to sell out but can't find a buyer. He will keep the club sound and stable but has no intention of investing further funds or trying to push the club forwards."

be made by the same person who seems most vehemently opposed to ever expanding the stadium unless there is a consistent average that is higher than the current maximum gate.

In other words, how can someone be accused of lacking ambition and not wanting to invest further funds in the club also be castigated for, er.... having ambition and wanting to invest further funds in the club?

Disappointing that you would post such a purile comment.

What's so purile about it? After all, didn't you post this?

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

[Sun Tzu]

The reason given for the decision not to proceed was the price of steel rather than the league position. Steel is now considerably cheaper but it doesn't seem to have prompted a rethink.[/quote]
I don't think that is actually true. The costs were certainly a factor, although it was as much the cost of the money as the cost of the materials. The uncertainty of the league position was also a factor, and in particular the fact that for contractual reasons they couldn't wait until the league position was resolved to make the go/no go decision on the work.

I would be staggered if the club announce commencement of the work ever, let alone in the next few weeks. I would doubt it's even on the agenda.

I would be surprised if they announce it in the next few weeks. I can't believe it is not very much on the agenda, it's a key element in the future of the club and the club is run by quite forward thinking businessmen who I'm sure know more about this sort of thing than Schards !

There's only 11 sides averaging 30,000 or more this season, it's hard see that Reading as a town has the fanbase to add to this even if prices were significantly reduced.

So you are now OK with 30k, it's just the 38k figure you aren;t keen on ?
30k is pretty clearly a sensible size ground for a club with Premiership aspirations. I've always said 38k was very long term and hard to see as being viable for quite a while. 30k means we take advantage of the majority of games in the Prem where 24k is too small AND we get the benefits of expanded off the field earning opportunties / facilities

[Schards#2]

Am I the only person who is a bit confused by 2 seemingly diametrically opposed points of view, expressed by the same poster??

How can this statement:

"Madejski - clearly, his heart is not in it to the extent it was previously. He would love to sell out but can't find a buyer. He will keep the club sound and stable but has no intention of investing further funds or trying to push the club forwards."

be made by the same person who seems most vehemently opposed to ever expanding the stadium unless there is a consistent average that is higher than the current maximum gate.

In other words, how can someone be accused of lacking ambition and not wanting to invest further funds in the club also be castigated for, er.... having ambition and wanting to invest further funds in the club?

Disappointing that you would post such a purile comment.

What's so purile about it? After all, didn't you post this?

My opinion FWIW is that if we could average around 26,000 season in season out then expanding to 30,000 would be a good idea.

Yes I did, if we could (i.e were capable of) average 26,000.

You would have to be an utter retard to think I was suggesting we needed to average 26,000 in a 24,000 stadium. Neither Mr Angry or Behindu are utter retards so to post that suggestion is pretty sad really. I suppose a sensible discussion is too much to ask on hob nob these days.

[The 17 Bus]

How much effect would reducing ticket prices have on attendance ? Or do people just choose to go or not regardless of the price. Taking me as an example ! I reckon if the price were reduced to £18 or below, I might attend a couple more games a season. £2-3 reduction probably wouldn't be enough to change my behaviour.

Would the club countenance growing the stadum and reducing the ticket price in an attempt to get more in.
Even with the reduced price, the extra customers (if there were any) would still buy the over-priced crap food and drink. They would have to have paid for a membership card. They might buy a shirt or 2 in the expanded megastore. Or the new 2nd megastore under the East stand.

It has had a massive effect at Bradford. Well priced ST's match day prices same as rest of the division, they are getting good crowds of 12k, and a similar income as others getting 6k, I think, will those folk renew if things go well??? i would say so.

If we had 30k stadium, we can sell more st, possibly 22k, sell all of those at a damned good price, (£15 a game?/) then immediately put all home games on sale for a little more per match, say £18 for every game rermaining
it has worked in the past to get us where we are, and could do so again.

In time we should end up with more that want to go.

We know we sold 18k ST for two seasons in the Prem at what I would call high prices, i believe we could sell more, if the pricing was right. And i will again repeat, a ST on the half way line up out of the rain is worth selling at one lower down, the seats they continually seem less able to sell.

[Royal Lady]

When Schards mentioned "if we can regularly get gates of 26k then expanding to 30k makes sense" I took it to mean that if, once we've expanded to 30K we can regularly get gates of 26k it won't have been a bad thing. However, if we expand to 30k and we regularly get gates of 21k, say, it's not been a good thing. Or something like that.