East Stand Hospitality Area

[Wycombe Royal]

that the option of moving everyone back 10 rows is not being considered, which is disappointing.

Why upset double the amount of fans? That does not seem a sensible option to me.

[Royal Fleet]

It is a lesser inconvenience on many, as oppose to a larger inconvenience on a few.

[Wycombe Royal]

It is a lesser inconvenience on many, as oppose to a larger inconvenience on a few.

Those additional fans you want to move may disagree with that.

[STAR Voice]

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.

RF - sorry, I don't understand what you're after. You say it's disappointing that the option of moving everyone back 10 rows isn't being considered, but then you say that you don't want to move further back.

Surely giving people who have to move the first choice of new seats means that they can go to where they like? They can choose to move 10 rows back (or fewer) if that's what they want - or they can choose to move right to the back of the new stand (as some might prefer) or they can choose to move elsewhere if they prefer. So surely a move to any free seat from thousands (on an individual choice basis) is better than an enforced move back X rows for everyone affected?

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but I see more choice from what the club is suggesting than from what you are suggesting.

I also think it would be a whole lot easier (rather than more logistics) for the club to just move everyone back X rows as a block, but they're offering the people concerned a greater choice than that.

[Wycombe Royal]

Surely giving people who have to move the first choice of new seats means that they can go to where they like? They can choose to move 10 rows back (or fewer) if that's what they want

Are you suggesting then that they could pick a current ST holders seat as that area is probably around 90% STH's.

[Royal Fleet]

I will not have the option to move 10 rows backs as there is already a row of existing season ticket holders there. If you assume that it is rows U to FF affected then those from row U would have to move to row LL (present stand ends at KK) - that is something like 18 rows back - or twice the distance they are at present.

edited as I don't know my alphabet

[Behindu]

Are you suggesting then that they could pick a current ST holders seat as that area is probably around 90% STH's.

So surely a move to any free seat from thousands .

[STAR Voice]

Surely giving people who have to move the first choice of new seats means that they can go to where they like? They can choose to move 10 rows back (or fewer) if that's what they want

Are you suggesting then that they could pick a current ST holders seat as that area is probably around 90% STH's.

No, of course not. Anyone who has to move will have the pick of all empty seats. Around 6,000 new ones in the new East Stand, plus any that haven't been renewed by existing ST holders.

[STAR Voice]

I will not have the option to move 10 rows backs as there is already a row of existing season ticket holders there. If you assume that it is rows U to FF affected then those from row U would have to move to row LL (present stand ends at KK) - that is something like 18 rows back - or twice the distance they are at present.

edited as I don't know my alphabet

Argh!!! Now do you see why it might be a good idea for everyone to chillax and wait and see

a) if this area is going to be built at all (they club might not get planning permission)
b) exactly where this area would be built
c) exactly how big (width and height) this area would be.

Only then can anyone work out who will be affected and what the best options for them are.

To get so excited about what is a small scale drawing of a design work still in progress is a waste of time for everyone.

[Royal Fleet]

Is this not the consultation phase then?

[ruprecht]

I'm growing to like this idea of an elite clubroom although may I suggest banning women.

[Hoop Blah]

Surely giving people who have to move the first choice of new seats means that they can go to where they like? They can choose to move 10 rows back (or fewer) if that's what they want

Are you suggesting then that they could pick a current ST holders seat as that area is probably around 90% STH's.

No, of course not. Anyone who has to move will have the pick of all empty seats. Around 6,000 new ones in the new East Stand, plus any that haven't been renewed by existing ST holders.

So it's very unlikely they'll be able to move the "10 rows back (or fewer) if thats what they want" that you stated?

Have they considered that these 'customers' they want to move might actually be sat by people they want to sit with? What if you are one of six that has to move, will the other five be allowed to move with that first priority mover and have first pick?

[Symposium]

.
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.

As one of those who is affected (at least, according to the initial plans on show), I'm happy to wait to see what is suggested by the club. I'm also happy that the club are looking for ways to increase choice to supporters, whilst maximising revenue for the club.

I'd be very interested in a new "lounge" or "club"-style facility... the concern would be the cost, but if that doesn't fit in with my budget, I just won't go for it. I'd also be interested having a seat in the extension, as I've got lots of friends all over the East Stand who have got season tickets at different times... it would be nice to "consolidate" to one row/block of seats.

However, I appreciate that either of those options might not be preferable to some people. But ANYTHING the club does will have people in favour, and people against. All the club can seek to do is be fair. From what we're hearing from STAR Campaigns, I believe they're doing that. As has already been said, until something more concrete is proposed, there's no point getting over excited about it.

[Royal Fleet]

However, I appreciate that either of those options might not be preferable to some people. But ANYTHING the club does will have people in favour, and people against.

Couldn't agree more. I would just like to think that the club is not only considering all options, but that they will actively seek the views of those affected rather than rely on supposition.

[.:BigDaveInTheDungeon:.]

until something more concrete is proposed, there's no point getting over excited about it.

by the time concrete plans are made there is nothing you can do to object, if they really are building a nice club for supporters it doesn't really need a view of the pitch does it?

[Silver Fox]

Why does the existing hospitality have a view of the pitch?

[Wycombe Royal]

until something more concrete is proposed, there's no point getting over excited about it.

by the time concrete plans are made there is nothing you can do to object, if they really are building a nice club for supporters it doesn't really need a view of the pitch does it?

THese areas need an attractive view - people aren't going to pay a lot of money for a view of B&Q. And also it more the location of the seats that leads on to the view the area provides. People paying extra money are going to want a central location in the stand, hence why this area has been chosen.

[.:BigDaveInTheDungeon:.]

until something more concrete is proposed, there's no point getting over excited about it.

by the time concrete plans are made there is nothing you can do to object, if they really are building a nice club for supporters it doesn't really need a view of the pitch does it?

THese areas need an attractive view - people aren't going to pay a lot of money for a view of B&Q. And also it more the location of the seats that leads on to the view the area provides. People paying extra money are going to want a central location in the stand, hence why this area has been chosen.

but the club and star are saying that this will not be a seated area, basicly it is being implied that this will just be a window onto the pitch for season ticket holders who pay for membership of the new hospitality area. a bar with a view of the pitch then really isn't it, unless the plans change at a later date to become executive boxes.

[Elm Park]

As one of those who is affected (at least, according to the initial plans on show), I'm happy to wait to see what is suggested by the club. I'm also happy that the club are looking for ways to increase choice to supporters, whilst maximising revenue for the club.

I'd be very interested in a new "lounge" or "club"-style facility... the concern would be the cost, but if that doesn't fit in with my budget, I just won't go for it. I'd also be interested having a seat in the extension, as I've got lots of friends all over the East Stand who have got season tickets at different times... it would be nice to "consolidate" to one row/block of seats.

However, I appreciate that either of those options might not be preferable to some people. But ANYTHING the club does will have people in favour, and people against. All the club can seek to do is be fair. From what we're hearing from STAR Campaigns, I believe they're doing that. As has already been said, until something more concrete is proposed, there's no point getting over excited about it.

I'm with Symposium on this and look forward to seeing what the club are proposing before I throw my toys out of the pram.

The only point that I would like to make (based on assumptions from what seems to be proposed at the moment) is that I would prefer not to have to move back further than my CC seat so as I see it the process should be:

Renewals - Everyone who wants to renew does so and those in the affected area whould choose their 'provisional' seat in the new area.

Movers Week 1 - All ST holders can choose to move to the new area only(thus freeing up seats in the existing stands)

Movers Week 2 - Those who were in the affected area can now choose to move their 'provisional' seat to any of those now free (due to Movers Week 1 and non-renewals)

Movers Week 3 - Anyone can choose to move to a free seat.

Although this will take 3 weeks to resolve, there should be sufficient time before the start of the season, even if this means that the date renewal applications have to be in is earlier than normal.

[weybridgewanderer]

one possible way of compensation the club may choose to give affected season ticket holders the first seasons memebership of this new club at a significantly discounted price.

The "members bar" idea is used by other clubs, one I am aware of its £5 a game on top of your current season ticket price (19 games = an extra £195).