East Stand Hospitality Area

[bigmike]

The thing that annoys more than most is STAR already have had discussions about the Hospitality boxes yet the only information the fans got given was a one sided A4 sheet of paper. Nothing offical from the Club or STAR... If you want to keep people happy keep them informed.

I understand that you cannot please eveyone all the time. But if it was communicated there would have been less backlash.

[Behindu]

Has there been any backlash ?

I'd agree coomunications is key, but chosing the time to communicate is always tricky.

If the plans aren;t at a stage where there is anything much to discuss then what do they communictae ?

And if the club had announced that there is a chance a few people may be asked to move to seats a bit further up the stand would you not still have reacted the same ? Your objection was to having to move at all...

[STAR Voice]

The thing that annoys more than most is STAR already have had discussions about the Hospitality boxes yet the only information the fans got given was a one sided A4 sheet of paper. Nothing offical from the Club or STAR... If you want to keep people happy keep them informed.

I understand that you cannot please eveyone all the time. But if it was communicated there would have been less backlash.

What exactly would you like communicated? We talk to the club about lots of things, which may or may not happen.

At the moment all the could be said is "some people might be affected but at this point no-one knows who or how many - if planning permission is granted".

I don't think that would help anyone!

[PieEater]

.

But, again, I'll ask the question, why should we flatly object to moving fans as a point of principle??

My starting point is that I'd expect the supporters trust to represent the supporters views. If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it. Is it unreasonable to assume that STAR would represent those views?

It would be possible to extend the stand and not affect anyone and have the same benefits, for example to put executive boxes a few rows higher. Why is it unreasonable to ask STAR to press the club to make this happen instead?

[TFF]

.

But, again, I'll ask the question, why should we flatly object to moving fans as a point of principle??

My starting point is that I'd expect the supporters trust to represent the supporters views. If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it. Is it unreasonable to assume that STAR would represent those views?

It would be possible to extend the stand and not affect anyone and have the same benefits, for example to put executive boxes a few rows higher. Why is it unreasonable to ask STAR to press the club to make this happen instead?

As one of the 99% of fans unaffected by these plans I demand that STAR does it's utmost to help the club maximise match day revenue and by extension ensure that the cost of my season ticket is kept at a reasonable level.

PieEater, you are the broken eggs in my omelette. Sorry.

[Behindu]

[If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it.

Although would 100% of those be voting on the basis of a rumour rather than fact ?

[STAR Voice]

.
But, again, I'll ask the question, why should we flatly object to moving fans as a point of principle??

My starting point is that I'd expect the supporters trust to represent the supporters views. If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it. Is it unreasonable to assume that STAR would represent those views?

Wow! That's a massive generalisation that you've come out with based on zero concrete evidence whatsoever!

Personally, I think that the best option is to let the club work out exactly how many people might be affected if this happens, and to see what the club actually offer them as compensation.

I think that only when people have actually heard what the club are asking them to do will in a position to make be informed judgement and decide whether or not they object to it.

[Royal Monk]

for example to put executive boxes a few rows higher

You just cant place these where ever you like !!! The structural design of the stadium has to be 1st priority in the positioning of the boxes and this includes the floor levels of the boxes. They haven't positioned them where they have just to piss people off ... they positioned them there due to contruction issues.

[PieEater]

for example to put executive boxes a few rows higher

You just cant place these where ever you like !!! The structural design of the stadium has to be 1st priority in the positioning of the boxes and this includes the floor levels of the boxes. They haven't positioned them where they have just to piss people off ... they positioned them there due to contruction issues.

The manage to do this fine in the North and South stands...... IMHO they have positioned them to get the best possible view in the East stand.

[Behindu]

So you say they are planning premium seats in the N & S as well ?

I believe they are planning disabled viewing platforms higher up and concourse facilities...
And as has been said, is it boxes or just access to seats from a concourse level ?

Th epoint is obvious though - it will be the concourse floor levels that dictate where the access to seats comes...

[Dirk Gently]

for example to put executive boxes a few rows higher

You just cant place these where ever you like !!! The structural design of the stadium has to be 1st priority in the positioning of the boxes and this includes the floor levels of the boxes. They haven't positioned them where they have just to piss people off ... they positioned them there due to contruction issues.

The manage to do this fine in the North and South stands...... IMHO they have positioned them to get the best possible view in the East stand.

Yeah, whatever you say ..... structural engineer are we now, as well as expert in planning regulations and customer service?

[Wycombe Royal]

You just cant place these where ever you like !!! The structural design of the stadium has to be 1st priority in the positioning of the boxes and this includes the floor levels of the boxes. They haven't positioned them where they have just to piss people off ... they positioned them there due to contruction issues.

The manage to do this fine in the North and South stands...... IMHO they have positioned them to get the best possible view in the East stand.

Yeah, whatever you say ..... structural engineer are we now, as well as expert in planning regulations and customer service?

Everything is simple, nothing is impossible, and RFC only do things to piss off the fans.

I thought everyone knew that?

[PieEater]

.
But, again, I'll ask the question, why should we flatly object to moving fans as a point of principle??

My starting point is that I'd expect the supporters trust to represent the supporters views. If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it. Is it unreasonable to assume that STAR would represent those views?

Wow! That's a massive generalisation that you've come out with based on zero concrete evidence whatsoever!

Personally, I think that the best option is to let the club work out exactly how many people might be affected if this happens, and to see what the club actually offer them as compensation.

I think that only when people have actually heard what the club are asking them to do will in a position to make be informed judgement and decide whether or not they object to it.

But you're avoiding the point again, or maybe not.

My point is the I'd expect a supporters trust not to entertain ousting loyal supporters to replace them with corporate freeloaders or more financially heeled, prawn sandwich eating, supporters. But it seems STAR are OK with this as a point of principal and are solely concerned with making sure those ousted get a fair deal.

IMHO the STAR stance of wait and see till we're told what to do, seems to be just pushing affected supporters to form a Gallowgate group to get their point across now, as STAR doesn't appear to want to.

As for my point of generalisation if you want a wider view I'm happy to find 5 other people to take sample each row of the those affected at the next game.

[Wycombe Royal]

My starting point is that I'd expect the supporters trust to represent the supporters views. If you took a vote of those affected 99% of those would object to it. Is it unreasonable to assume that STAR would represent those views?

Wow! That's a massive generalisation that you've come out with based on zero concrete evidence whatsoever!

Personally, I think that the best option is to let the club work out exactly how many people might be affected if this happens, and to see what the club actually offer them as compensation.

I think that only when people have actually heard what the club are asking them to do will in a position to make be informed judgement and decide whether or not they object to it.

But you're avoiding the point again, or maybe not.

My point is the I'd expect a supporters trust not to entertain ousting loyal supporters to replace them with corporate freeloaders or more financially heeled, prawn sandwich eating, supporters. But it seems STAR are OK with this as a point of principal and are solely concerned with making sure those ousted get a fair deal.

IMHO the STAR stance of wait and see till we're told what to do, seems to be just pushing affected supporters to form a Gallowgate group to get their point across now, as STAR doesn't appear to want to.

As for my point of generalisation if you want a wider view I'm happy to find 5 other people to take sample each row of the those affected at the next game.

Did you complain like this when we moved from Elm Park citing the fact that you were going to lose your excellent viewing position on the South Bank?

[Behindu]

My point is the I'd expect a supporters trust not to entertain ousting loyal supporters to replace them with corporate freeloaders or more financially heeled, prawn sandwich eating, supporters. But it seems STAR are OK with this as a point of principal and are solely concerned with making sure those ousted get a fair deal..

Actually chatting to a few people at the forum last night I was surprised at the fact that several thought it would be excellent to have access to a 'club' style venue with direct access to their seat. Obviously they were concerned at the cost, but it was far from a negative response from a totally non scientific survey !

As for my point of generalisation if you want a wider view I'm happy to find 5 other people to take sample each row of the those affected at the next game.

That seems a great suggestion - although be careful what you ask as a biased set of questions that don;t relate to what (may) be planned might invalidate the results.
Too many people rant on here (which is really pretty pointless) rather than getting up and doing something. If you are prepared to get off your seat and do something in a positive way then fair play to you.
I'd strongly recommend liaising with STAR though to make sure you don;t end up scare mongering and that your results can get back tot he right people.

[STAR Voice]

But you're avoiding the point again, or maybe not.

I don't think so. I'm waiting to see exactly what the point is before deciding whether to support or oppose it. I'm not going to condemn something out of hand before it is a definite possibility. I also think that what the club will offer anyone who does have to move will be happily accepted by all those who are open minded.

My point is the I'd expect a supporters trust not to entertain ousting loyal supporters to replace them with corporate freeloaders or more financially heeled, prawn sandwich eating, supporters. But it seems STAR are OK with this as a point of principal and are solely concerned with making sure those ousted get a fair deal.

Such emotive language - ("ousting", "corporate freeloaders," "prawn-sandwich eating") shows where you're coming from. You seem to be opposed on a point of principle to any other kind of supporter/facility other than you and what you use.

To clarify once again, I have been told that this is not executive boxes like in the West Stand, it's a lounge/bar for East Stand supporters. You may not want to use it but quite a few might. If they're prepared to pay a bit extra, then fine - I wouldn't myself, you clearly won't, but it could be a useful facility for some and it will bring in more money to subsidise our team. It will also make the new concourses less crowded (in a small way) for everyone else. But why should I not support a greater choice of catering facilities for all East Stand supporters?

And just to correct the word "ousted" - no-one is being thrown out of the stadium - at worst case they'll have to move to a different seat, of which there'll be over 6,000 new empty ones and they'll have first choice of them.

IMHO the STAR stance of wait and see till we're told what to do, seems to be just pushing affected supporters to form a Gallowgate group to get their point across now, as STAR doesn't appear to want to.

What exactly is your point? It now seems to be that any "hospitality area is bad and should be opposed." Interestingly, the club has used what happened at Newcastle as an example of how not to do things, so it's a very poor analogy - even more so because people at Newcastle had bought debentures, which guaranteed them a specific seat for a specified period of time. There is no such thing as debentures at Reading - people buy season tickets, which guarantees them a particular seat for a period of 1 season. The club will be doing far, far more than they need to for anyone who has to move.

As for my point of generalisation if you want a wider view I'm happy to find 5 other people to take sample each row of the those affected at the next game.

That's doesn't sound very scientific, but I'm happy to discuss this with anyone, and I'm confident that once they know the facts (rather than the rumours, hearsay and scaremongering) they'll be fine.

[66DD]

I note that the club are stating that all affected fans will be "given first priority in selecting a new seat". This is abject nonsense as not everyone affected can have first priority. What if more than one person selects the same new seat. What if an existing season ticket holder already has that seat. It's hardly first priority is it?

[Behindu]

If an existing STH already has the seat then it can't be a 'new' seat can it..

[STAR Voice]

I note that the club are stating that all affected fans will be "given first priority in selecting a new seat". This is abject nonsense as not everyone affected can have first priority. What if more than one person selects the same new seat. What if an existing season ticket holder already has that seat. It's hardly first priority is it?

There will be over 6,000 brand new seats to choose from, as well as any renewals not taken up! How is an existing ST holder going to have one of them?

A small group having a selection from that many empty seats seems a pretty good choice to me - and yes, a small group can have first "priority". It's equal priority too within that small group, but first priority over everyone else.

[Royal Fleet]

I know that STAR have been requested/required to keep quiet on the options that are being considered, but what has been said leads me to believe that the option of moving everyone back 10 rows is not being considered, which is disappointing.

As one of those moving, I do not want to have the option of all those new seats, because they are much further back than I sit at present. Most people who are in that area are because they want to be on the half way line, so all that will happen is that they will pick the same seat again, only much further from the pitch.

Please could STAR suggest this option to the club. I for one would rather forego any compensation on offer to retain a better seat. I appreciate that it would be more logistics to move all of those people in those seats unaffected back, but as has been mentioned already you are talking about a large number of the most loyal fans.