Rage Online

Even with a potential of a 14,500|| crowd WPL will not build a temporary fourth one (‘cos it cost too much and is too much hassle) and unless we get into the Prem I’d guess that a capacity of 12,500 will be fine and dandy at the Kassam even at Championship level with this lot in charge of the club’s future.

On the flip side it’s great news for people who like to see a decent sunset over the Ozone in the open West end or like watching hoofball where the westerly winds make Fourth Division football even more of a lottery than it already is.

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Even with a potential of a 14,500|| crowd WPL will not build a temporary fourth one (‘cos it cost too much and is too much hassle) and unless we get into the Prem I’d guess that a capacity of 12,500 will be fine and dandy at the Kassam even at Championship level with this lot in charge of the club’s future.

On the flip side it’s great news for people who like to see a decent sunset over the Ozone in the open West end or like watching hoofball where the westerly winds make Fourth Division football even more of a lottery than it already is.

Its a real shame that the club have decided not to have a temporary stand.

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Even with a potential of a 14,500|| crowd WPL will not build a temporary fourth one (‘cos it cost too much and is too much hassle) and unless we get into the Prem I’d guess that a capacity of 12,500 will be fine and dandy at the Kassam even at Championship level with this lot in charge of the club’s future.

On the flip side it’s great news for people who like to see a decent sunset over the Ozone in the open West end or like watching hoofball where the westerly winds make Fourth Division football even more of a lottery than it already is.

The theoretical capacity may well be 12,500 but by the time fan segregation is introduced for high risk matches, particularly during early March, I reckon actual capacity will be somewhat less.

&quotAndrewmaha&quot wrote:

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Even with a potential of a 14,500|| crowd WPL will not build a temporary fourth one (‘cos it cost too much and is too much hassle) and unless we get into the Prem I’d guess that a capacity of 12,500 will be fine and dandy at the Kassam even at Championship level with this lot in charge of the club’s future.

On the flip side it’s great news for people who like to see a decent sunset over the Ozone in the open West end or like watching hoofball where the westerly winds make Fourth Division football even more of a lottery than it already is.

The theoretical capacity may well be 12,500 but by the time fan segregation is introduced for high risk matches, particularly during early March, I reckon actual capacity will be somewhat less.

As you will be well aware from your Swansea City viewing experiences, Mr. C, empty seats equal lost revenue to a club when demand exceeds supply. I mailed Kelvin months ago about this issue arguing along the lines that paying for more stewards and police is better value than a physical gap with that crap bit of black netting to segregate Them from Us.

I’m really glad I have a ticket for the South Stand on March 3rd, because if it kicks off in the North Stand I’ll be safe and have a good view of it all.

We go and accept an offer for Beano from Them, and then we do this. No ambition, no sense, and not the Oxford United I used to know.

The most interesting passage of the club's statement, of course, is this one:

With an additional stand the overall attendance would be over 14,000, which would also create serious traffic flow and parking issues before and after the match

That argument presumably doesn't just apply to a temporary stand. Effectively, what it says is that the club won't EVER build a fourth stand because the local infrastructure won't accomodate it.

Which rather begs the question - if you can't add extra capacity at a purpose-built stadium in the middle of nowhere by a sewage works, where CAN you?

Pretty disappointed the way the club have handled this.

The clear implication was that if there was the demand then the club would seriosly look at the forth stand option. I am suprised that the approximatel coastings were not known whe making such a statement.

Of course the demand would be there to fill up the 4th side plus the rest of the North Stand. The supporters have all korked out for tickets well in advance and yet the 4th stand is simply not an option is seems.

I rememebr the 4th stand being used for a Rugby game some years back? As others have said further up the 3 stands it is then presumably unti,l we get to The Championship.

If the capacity would exceed 14,000, then the capacity of the temporary stand would be just over 1,500.

At a cost of £17.74 || VAT per seat, that works out at a minimum cost of £31,932 to have a 4th stand for this fixture.

That cost would be partially repaid by 1,500 tickets sold at £11.94 || VAT per seat = £21,492, leaving a deficit of £10,440 to be paid for by additional seats sold in the North Stand to OUFC supporters.

The tickets in the North Stand would need to be priced at the same level as those who have already paid to avoid inequity i.e. £18.00 per ticket.

Therefore the club would have to sell an additional 580 tickets (at adult prices) out of the 1,974 that would be available to make the 4th stand pay for itself.

The club's argument is that there are only 165 fans who have registered an interest in buying tickets, and so the 580 tickets necessary would not be sold.

Personally, I think the club has done a great job in publishing the figures for this and I really welcome that openness.

What I find a little bizarre is that the club could at this point have said, we need another 415 fans to register their interest to make this project viable. They could even have taken the ticket money now and refunded it later if demand were not there. Relying purely on those who have registered an interest so far may not be a very accurate way of assessing demand.

Part of the problem is that the calculations appear to have been left quite late, so there may be insufficient time to organise this properly. And another part of the problem is that Swinedown fans have to be given an opportunity to buy tickets in advance, but the club could have allocated them with 1,252 tickets pro tem, without an allocated stand or seat on the ticket. And then issued the additional 248 tickets if there was sufficient demand from Oxford fans.

Had these calcs been done before Christmas, this process would have been that much easier.

I applaud the openness, which is great. I'm not sure they've reached the right conclusion though as there was a way they could have tested the market.

The stuff about traffic is flim flam to add weight to the argument, but is not a reason to change the conclusion that should be reached.

Edit: One factor I did not mention is that if all 1,974 additional seats had been sold to Oxford fans, the club would have made an additional £25,092 profit from the fixture. Enough for an extra loan player to the end of the season.

Also loss of car parking would have been a significant issue.

I read that to mean no one-off temporary stands, but I would not rule out a semi-temporary one (ie scaffold based one that stays up for the whole season), albeit probably only when we reach the Championship.

The point re: seecurity/parking etc may be only words, but there is an element of common sense in not trialling any of this in the highest profile game at the stadium in many years. All it would need would be some sort of incident/flaw/breakdown in the security/admin/handling of the day (particularly when being tested by our Wiltshirian friends and that could have far worse longer term consequences....

Being honest - how many times do we think we would really need to have anything at that end, even in League 1?

Why didn't we just hire out the Madjeski stadium? capacity 24,000.
I think for a one off game it is a nonsense building a temp stand - untried, untested. think about it when we are regularly getting 10k crowds.

Maybe it wasn't ever viable and the car paring etc would clearly be a problem.

The club however dangled this potenbtial carrot based on the tickets being sold quickly- something that happened.

In my view regardless of the internet waiting list, most if not all of the remaining tickets would have been sold.

I think that the club were far too quick off the mark in suggesting a 4th stand- they shoudl have considered the car parking/ traffic well before making suc statements.

&quotMooro&quot wrote:I read that to mean no one-off temporary stands, but I would not rule out a semi-temporary one (ie scaffold based one that stays up for the whole season), albeit probably only when we reach the Championship.
The point re: seecurity/parking etc may be only words, but there is an element of common sense in not trialling any of this in the highest profile game at the stadium in many years. All it would need would be some sort of incident/flaw/breakdown in the security/admin/handling of the day (particularly when being tested by our Wiltshirian friends and that could have far worse longer term consequences....

Being honest - how many times do we think we would really need to have anything at that end, even in League 1?

I like the optimism Mooro

&quotJoey's Toe&quot wrote:The most interesting passage of the club's statement, of course, is this one:

With an additional stand the overall attendance would be over 14,000, which would also create serious traffic flow and parking issues before and after the match

That argument presumably doesn't just apply to a temporary stand. Effectively, what it says is that the club won't EVER build a fourth stand because the local infrastructure won't accomodate it.

Which rather begs the question - if you can't add extra capacity at a purpose-built stadium in the middle of nowhere by a sewage works, where CAN you?

Well, the next sentence in their explanation does explain that: &quotGiven that this match will not be a low key fixture anyway it is seen as a risk to test traffic flow and any new parking systems in such a high profile fixture.&quot

Gav - yes, but that to me seems a nonsensical argument.

They're basically saying that we wouldn't need the stand for low-profile games, but for high-profile games, the infrastructure can't cope. By that logic, the circumstances will never be right, no?

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:Maybe it wasn't ever viable and the car paring etc would clearly be a problem.

The club however dangled this potenbtial carrot based on the tickets being sold quickly- something that happened.

In my view regardless of the internet waiting list, most if not all of the remaining tickets would have been sold.

I think that the club were far too quick off the mark in suggesting a 4th stand- they shoudl have considered the car parking/ traffic well before making suc statements.

But did the club ever suggest it? Weren't they just giving an open-minded response to a fan-based suggestion?

I can see the club's point about infrastructure risks for such a high-profile game, and frankly I don't see that Slumdon deserve many more tickets given what they used to bring when we played them regularly in the league. I recall half the Cuckoo Lane being closed off one year because they'd sold so few tickets. Previously OUFC have been pilloried for giving away fans too many tickets, so for fans to complain that Slumdon don't have enough now is ridiculous.

One last point about the Slumdon fans' whinging about the allocation compared to what they gave us - they seem to be missing the point that they didn't even sell out of tickets for the home areas for the match at their place in August! The home game will be a sell-out regardless.

&quotJoey's Toe&quot wrote:Gav - yes, but that to me seems a nonsensical argument.

They're basically saying that we wouldn't need the stand for low-profile games, but for high-profile games, the infrastructure can't cope. By that logic, the circumstances will never be right, no?

Yes, but there are games that could be busy, higher risk games, and then there are Sw****n games.
You have to test out plans for traffic and parking and things like that, not run them live. I would imagine that it was at the lower end of the decision making scale (well behind money).