Kneeza
Well-Known Member
Ironically, the Butts has now been re-licensed for just over 5000 - which would make it Premier League fit (although there would need to be segregation/safety etc etc issues addressed too).
Ironically, the Butts has now been re-licensed for just over 5000 - which would make it Premier League fit (although there would need to be segregation/safety etc etc issues addressed too).Not saying there should be, but isn't there a minimum capacity to get into the EFL? I seem to remember that being a reason why the Butts could never be an option when we were moving around
Ironically, the Butts has now been re-licensed for just over 5000 - which would make it Premier League fit (although there would need to be segregation/safety etc etc issues addressed too).
Football is for teams that can dream of the promised land, not a cartel of big clubs.Totally agree, there should be a minimum capacity of 30,000 required to be in the Prem.
Football is for teams that can dream of the promised land, not a cartel of big clubs.
True you have yourself to look after, the difference is with any sport you need it to be competitive to be successful. Just look at Scotland, two clubs the others just make up the numbers. I can remember when they had a competitive league, producing loads of players. Just look at the Scotsmen we have had, Jim Blythe, Ian Wallace, Hutch, Callahan (sp) etc there was a conveyor belt of talent, Scotland national team was a lot better as well. If the FA/EFLate not careful we will go the same way.But let's be honest here. If Coventry we're in the Premier League, the club and our fans would be protective of our income. We wouldn't want to give it away to teams beneath us.
People always attend the negotiating table with their own self interest at heart.
Not really. It has more seats tham the PL requirement already.I suppose that most of that is standing would be an issue!
Out of interest how was it relicensed? Have they done work on the ground or have they "found" this extra capacity?
Team make changes as and when needed. Brighton used concert seating at the Withdean.Not really. It has more seats tham the PL requirement already.
AFAIK, the previous 4000 figure was totally arbitrary, and with nearly 3000 seats in the main stand from day one, 2000 or so spread around three sides of the ground is fairly thin population, so I think they just negotiated the increase with the relevant safety bodies/council.
Bedford, Ealing and Doncaster are all over the 5k mark too, and all have fewer seats than Cov (and in the case of Ealing, far worse access) so I reckon it would've been pretty straightforward.
Environmentalist would love that.So by your logic, would it be acceptable for a Prem team to play in a ground with zero capacity? Would only need to give away fans 10% of available seats - i.e 0. No stewarding or police costs, no danger of being penalised for bad fan behaviour. Easy to align with green transport policies as no carbon emissions created by supporter travel. It must be a winner.
Sunderland limit their tickets to us anyway.. the plan is unworkable…Environmentalist would love that.
Your logic is that of the big clubs.(me, me ,me)
If Plymouth(cap.18,000) finished 2nd in next seasons championship and Sunderland finished 3rd(cap 49,000) should they swap places so there are more away seats.The team that goes up ,goes up because they have picked up the most points.
The only thing that stops that is if their ground does not meet safety standands.As for having small grounds ie Bournmouth they will expand if and when they feel the need to and not just to appease away fans.
Don't know how many any home team give away teams just making a point.Sunderland limit their tickets to us anyway.. the plan is unworkable…
You have really focused on my comment about away fan capacity at these smaller grounds, and in fairness I did use that as a justification. In reality, it’s more than that though. It just seems somewhat tinpot to have matches in supposedly the best league in the world being watched live by so few people. My suggesting 30,000 might be a bit OTT but 25,000 is surely reasonable.Don't know how many any home team give away teams just making a point.
MalcSB's logic would be Man. Utd. would never get religated by virtue of having the biggest ground.
Why should a team spend money just so more away fan can attend?
As I said in post 117, you have focused on my glib comment about away fans but it is more than that. If a club doesn’t have a ground that meets required standards then they could be replaced by one that does. Preferably not Sunderland.Environmentalist would love that.
Your logic is that of the big clubs.(me, me ,me)
If Plymouth(cap.18,000) finished 2nd in next seasons championship and Sunderland finished 3rd(cap 49,000) should they swap places so there are more away seats.The team that goes up ,goes up because they have picked up the most points.
The only thing that stops that is if their ground does not meet safety standands.As for having small grounds ie Bournmouth they will expand if and when they feel the need to and not just to appease away fans.
Luton or Bournmouth should never have been promoted on your logic.My logic does not mean than Man Utd would never be relegated, but they would be replaced by a club having a ground capacity of more than, say, Luton or Bournemouth.
It’s 4,000 with only 500 seats. The Butts Park can fulfil that criteria if it weren’t for their synthetic pitch.Sunderland was a joke.
Luton or Bournemouth would not have been promoted on my logic, However, they would have known the standard required and would either have met them, perhaps by spending less on players and been less “competitive”, or have had to accept that they wouldn’t get promoted.
Man Utd would get relegated and the highest placed team in the Championship with the required stadium capacity would get promoted, all clubs knowing the requirements before the start of the season, I wouldn't need to tell Millwall, they would have known from the outset what would be required of them.
Apparently there ARE minimum requirements for capacity in the Football League - 5,000 - which means that zero capacity would not be permitted despite it having been reported that a number of premier clubs would still make a profit with zero attendances. So the principle of minimum capacity is already in place.
TBH I have reached the point where I am making an argument for the sake of it, so I’ll just accept that you are right.
This season, when outside the Prem, 25,000 would be too small.It’s 4,000 with only 500 seats. The Butts Park can fulfil that criteria if it weren’t for their synthetic pitch.
30,000 for the top league is arbitrary and why force clubs to build stadiums of a size not suited to their requirements.
30,000 is too big for us outside of the Prem - minus the odd big game or now because we’re on a run towards the end of the season.
Yes because of success. 25,000 would’ve been too big for most seasons at the RICOH in the championship before we went down.This season, when outside the Prem, 25,000 would be too small.
YepYes because of success. 25,000 would’ve been too big for most seasons at the RICOH in the championship before we went down.
You don’t want clubs to have massive stadia that they don’t need. We need less Darlingtons on the world - built a 25,500 stadium in L1 or L2 and ended up going bust. If there was an arbitrary rule that teams need stadia of 20-30,000 this would happen. In fact, our situation with RICOH definitely hastened our fall to becoming a L2 side.
You want clubs like Bournemouth, Luton and even ourselves to grow organically. We moved to the RICOH that was originally intended to be 40,000 capacity when we weren’t consistently selling out Highfield road.
We chased a dream that became a nightmare.
How long should it take for Bournemouth to be allowed to grow organically?Yes because of success. 25,000 would’ve been too big for most seasons at the RICOH in the championship before we went down.
You don’t want clubs to have massive stadia that they don’t need. We need less Darlingtons on the world - built a 25,500 stadium in L1 or L2 and ended up going bust. If there was an arbitrary rule that teams need stadia of 20-30,000 this would happen. In fact, our situation with RICOH definitely hastened our fall to becoming a L2 side.
You want clubs like Bournemouth, Luton and even ourselves to grow organically. We moved to the RICOH that was originally intended to be 40,000 capacity when we weren’t consistently selling out Highfield road.
We chased a dream that became a nightmare.
How long should it take for Bournemouth to be allowed to grow organically?
25,000 would be insufficient capacity at the CBS for the next 4 seasons at least. 30,000 would be insufficient if we made it to the Prem and made a reasonable fist of it.
I wasn’t suggesting extending or building a bigger stadium, I was refuting your assertion that 30,000 is too big for us.They are building a new stadium, as are Luton. These are projects that need long term justifications because they’re expensive. Everton is such as an example where the demand is there to expand and just how straining it is on a club.
In relation to our situation, you’re probably getting a bit ahead of yourself. Not in a nasty way, but it’s the kind of false optimism that led our pre-SISU owners into pursing a grandiose 40,000 seater project to then scale down the project and require the Council to bail us out.
We’ve sold out our ST for one season - we need a waiting list and to regularly sell out all games to prove the demand is there to expand. Wolves & Villa have long waiting lists of 5+ years iirc. We don’t. You don’t make decisions that impact a football club in the long term based on a few good seasons.
Again, in the wider context, clubs make more money from TV audiences than ticket sales. The difference between us selling 32k and a 40k stadium is pretty minimal.
Historically, it has been. Your assumptions are based on continued success and whilst I hope you’re right… it’s not a guarantee.I wasn’t suggesting extending or building a bigger stadium, I was refuting your assertion that 30,000 is too big for us.
Historically, it has been. Your assumptions are based on continued success and whilst I hope you’re right… it’s not a guarantee.
Completely agree that our potential is to fill a 35-40,000 seater stadium as a Prem team.
A quick look at our historic attendances - this season is the outlier.
Coventry City - Change in attendance figures
Die Entwicklung der Besucherzahlen zeigt an, wie sich das Zuschauerinteresse für den Verein Coventry im Vergleich der Saisons entwickelt hat.www.transfermarkt.co.uk
Which is the point, the optimistic view is that we’re entering a sunny period in a club’s history. Personally I believe we are but that’s not a reason to get ahead of ourselves.A quick look at our historic results - this season is the outlier.
I’m not sure that it is statistically an outlier. Ignoring League 1 and 2 (reasonable as we are talking capacity for championship and above) and the Covid year, the average attendance since promotion to the then top flight is 19,259 with a standard deviation of 5,800. Current attendances are less than 2 SD from the mean: my understanding is that to be an outlier would require greater than 3 SD from the mean.Historically, it has been. Your assumptions are based on continued success and whilst I hope you’re right… it’s not a guarantee.
Completely agree that our potential is to fill a 35-40,000 seater stadium as a Prem team.
A quick look at our historic attendances - this season is the outlier.
Coventry City - Change in attendance figures
Die Entwicklung der Besucherzahlen zeigt an, wie sich das Zuschauerinteresse für den Verein Coventry im Vergleich der Saisons entwickelt hat.www.transfermarkt.co.uk
I’m not sure that it is statistically an outlier. Ignoring League 1 and 2 (reasonable as we are talking capacity for championship and above) and the Covid year, the average attendance since promotion to the then top flight is 19,259 with a standard deviation of 5,800. Current attendances are less than 2 SD from the mean: my understanding is that to be an outlier would require greater than 3 SD from the mean.
If this is our highest average attendance since before my mum was born and it’s still below 32.6k… we can hardly say that our current stadium is too small for us.
I’m pretty sure counting all STHs as present is a relative new ‘innovation’ too. Take the FZ as an example - lots of empty seats all being counted.
Some on here are absolutely deluded if they really think we need a 35-40,000 stadium. If we do then so do every other club in the midlands that are currently in the championship or higher.
Which club out of Stoke, Leicester, Forest, Derby, Birmingham and Wolves have inferior support to Coventry City ? We've had one season where we have had averaged over 25k and suddenly the CBS is too small.
We rarely fill it .
If we get promoted we'll sell out every game but by the third season if we are struggling we'll be back to.26-27k
We're not Leicester, not Forest or Derby . We're not even Brighton .
'Sell outs' at the moment are what, about 24K home fans? Before anyone even considers expanding the ground they would look at the configuration, which they are already doing, to get that increased by 5K plus.Some on here are absolutely deluded if they really think we need a 35-40,000 stadium
I haven’t said that our current stadium is too small, I said 25,000 would be too small when you said 30,000 is too big!If this is our highest average attendance since before my mum was born and it’s still below 32.6k… we can hardly say that our current stadium is too small for us.
I’m pretty sure counting all STHs as present is a relative new ‘innovation’ too. Take the FZ as an example - lots of empty seats all being counted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?