Safe Standing at Ewood - Consultation

[JohnD]

22 minutes ago, Mike Graham said:

John, we had a working group with the Club and those were the only feasible options unless you want the whole of the BBE Lower for Safe Standing (which we ruled out as it would naff off too many long term ST holders).  O2G has explained why the Riverside option was ruled out.  

Thanks.

Anyone who is against the proposal has to agree with a specific standing area?

[Mike Graham]

3 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Thanks.

Anyone who is against the proposal has to agree with a specific standing area?

Thanks John.  I will take that up with the Club now.

[J*B]

12 hours ago, Miller11 said:

 

It’s been suggested as a possibility and we’ve been asked to gauge the reaction to it. I’ve made my personal reaction to it pretty clear in my response.

Something else I’m also personally pretty keen on is not just converting already occupied seats to safe standing ones. If they are already occupied the only purpose it will serve is to appease the safety advisory group, whereas I’d like to see safe standing used as a way to attract new or lapsed fans too, so finding areas which aren’t overly full currently.

Tell them if they try it I'll get the protest band back together!! The audacity to even suggest it... incredible, a new low. 

[rigger]

12 hours ago, Miller11 said:

 

It’s been suggested as a possibility and we’ve been asked to gauge the reaction to it. I’ve made my personal reaction to it pretty clear in my response.

Something else I’m also personally pretty keen on is not just converting already occupied seats to safe standing ones. If they are already occupied the only purpose it will serve is to appease the safety advisory group, whereas I’d like to see safe standing used as a way to attract new or lapsed fans too, so finding areas which aren’t overly full currently.

Blackburn end upper.

[Dreams of 1995]

Surely the best option for the Club in the long term is to develop the entire Riverside area into a safe standing, single tier stand

In the short term, a portion of the BBE lower, probably around N01

I am gobsmacked that a company the size of Blackburn Rovers continues to allow the Riverside to dilapidate with no business plan to improve this area. It has great potential in my opinion

Edited November 30, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[J*B]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Surely the best option for the Club in the long term is to develop the entire Riverside area into a safe standing, single tier stand

In the short term, a portion of the BBE lower, probably around N01

I am gobsmacked that a company the size of Blackburn Rovers continues to allow the Riverside to dilapidate with no business plan to improve this area. It has great potential in my opinion

How much do you think it'll cost to do this? Considering it seems we nearly went bankrupt because the club couldn't get money in from India this year, I can't see the level of investment needed to get the Riverside into anything viable. 

[Mattyblue]

They’ve had 12 years pre this recent liquidity issue and there’s not ever been a sniff of the never refusers sorting out that dilapidated (non FFP impacted) piece of infrastructure.

[speedies gonna get ya.]

Agree the Riverside needs redevelopment and safe standing may be a good use of the space. I had worried about it continuing to get a saftey certificate but after visiting Loftus Road, Kenilworth Road and Hillsborough to name but a few, no danger of it getting refused.

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Surely the best option for the Club in the long term is to develop the entire Riverside area into a safe standing, single tier stand

In the short term, a portion of the BBE lower, probably around N01

I am gobsmacked that a company the size of Blackburn Rovers continues to allow the Riverside to dilapidate with no business plan to improve this area. It has great potential in my opinion

That really is the worst idea of the lot but probably the easiest.

The only place it will be of any real success is across the back of the BBE otherwise don't bother.

[tomphil]

4 hours ago, rigger said:

Blackburn end upper.

Stop it.

[Herbie6590]

6 hours ago, Lancaster Rover said:

Depends what you mean by unreserved, I know at Celtic Park they have absolute murder keeping those without tickets for the standing section out. I am all for them but one of the main considerations is around access to the section and effectively fencing it off so you don't end up with 100 people standing in an area designated for 50. Whilst standing sections are unreserved once you get in there you do get allocated a seat.

Capacity say 500, sell 400 tickets. First come first served as to where you sit - same policy used at many away games 

[Dreams of 1995]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

How much do you think it'll cost to do this? Considering it seems we nearly went bankrupt because the club couldn't get money in from India this year, I can't see the level of investment needed to get the Riverside into anything viable. 

I just went through BCIS to analyse stadia development and adjusted the location / date to Q4 2024

The best benchmark would be the Torquay redevelopment of their stand, with a fitness suite, to accomodate 1,800 people

A cost per m2 for this would be £3,691

A cost per person would be £1,611.81

Say we have a stand that seats 4,000 people, a broad benchmark would be £6.5m

Or, assuming the Riverside stand is about 2000m2 @ £3691m2 = £7.4m

I have too much time on my hands
Waggot could employ me to manage it for him. I'd do it for expenses only. That would save em a few bob

 

£7.4m to the Venkys is chicken feed I should add. They waste that each year just by owning us.

AnalysesDetail_cb9b30b096d97f65cdf11a3b11302da0.pdf

Edited November 30, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[J*B]

4 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I just went through BCIS to analyse stadia development and adjusted the location / date to Q4 2024

The best benchmark would be the Torquay redevelopment of their stand, with a fitness suite, to accomodate 1,800 people

A cost per m2 for this would be £3,691

A cost per person would be £1,611.81

Say we have a stand that seats 4,000 people, a broad benchmark would be £6.5m

Or, assuming the Riverside stand is about 2000m2 @ £3691m2 = £7.4m

I have too much time on my hands
Waggot could employ me to manage it for him. I'd do it for expenses only. That would save em a few bob

 

£7.4m to the Venkys is chicken feed I should add. They waste that each year just by owning us.

AnalysesDetail_cb9b30b096d97f65cdf11a3b11302da0.pdf 108.08 kB · 6 downloads

This is far more reasoned and considered than I had expected if I’m honest. 

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, J*B said:

This is far more reasoned and considered than I had expected if I’m honest. 

Reasoned and considered is the nature of a QS J*B............

Nah, if you have access to BCIS as I do for work, things like that take about 10 minutes

But in all seriousness, I really don't think the redevelopment of this stand is an out of the ordinary undertaking. Tell the Issa brothers they can put a Subway and a Costa in it and they'd chip in a few quid

I don't think anything like that will ever happen under Venkys though. The operation is survive and appease. The addition of a few safe standing seats can't even garner their support- they are asking for crowd funding. It's madness. Anybody serious would see the Riverside as an opportunity. Instead, it is something they want to hide and forget about, hence the switch of camera angles

[Mike Graham]

On 30/11/2023 at 01:30, Upside Down said:

Even the notion of this being crowdfunded is absolutely fucking disgusting.

The supporter survey feedback to date on crowdfunding contradicts your polemic. 
 

However we will have to wait until January for the full survey feedback.

[Mattyblue]

What folk say on a survey compared to actually putting their money were said mouth is can be quite different…

[Mike Graham]

18 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

What folk say on a survey compared to actually putting their money were said mouth is can be quite different…

That is true.  I was just reporting on what I have seen re the Survey to date.

[J*B]

1 hour ago, Mike Graham said:

That is true.  I was just reporting on what I have seen re the Survey to date.

I'd argue this isn't the case at all. 

If the survey shows a willingness from fans to crowdfund safe standing, its showing the fantastic commitment from Rovers fans to try and improve this football club despite a CEO who's approach to everything is cheap. 

If the survey said "Would you be willing to contribute towards the infrastructure needed for safe standing? Do you think its an embarrassment that we're asking you - the hard working public of a town which is way above the national average for deprivation - to pay for this?" then I bet you'd get two Yes's.

[Hasta]

In my experience of similar things, the majority of people who are interested in standing will complete the survey. Only people who would be affected by it would really object, and as we do not know which area would be affected I doubt they will bother speaking up / completing the survey at this time. Therefore it will be slanted to being positive.

 

[only2garners]

39 minutes ago, Hasta said:

In my experience of similar things, the majority of people who are interested in standing will complete the survey. Only people who would be affected by it would really object, and as we do not know which area would be affected I doubt they will bother speaking up / completing the survey at this time. Therefore it will be slanted to being positive.

 

I think we are aware of that Hasta. If and when this moves forward there will be a separate consultation with any fans directly affected by any proposal.

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, only2garners said:

I think we are aware of that Hasta. If and when this moves forward there will be a separate consultation with any fans directly affected by any proposal.

Was there a consultation when they closed the Darwen End for home fans?

Or when they relocated the family stand from the BBE upper to the JW stand?

Or did they just go and do it?

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

Was there a consultation when they closed the Darwen End for home fans?

Or when they relocated the family stand from the BBE upper to the JW stand?

Or did they just go and do it?

At least they are showing a willing to change approach and we should react positively to it

Edited December 1, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[Mike Graham]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

Was there a consultation when they closed the Darwen End for home fans?

Or when they relocated the family stand from the BBE upper to the JW stand?

Or did they just go and do it?

In my opinion they got the above wrong by not consulting.  This has been raised and the Club have assured us that they will consult, no doubt with the advice / assistance of ‘We Are The Rovers’ Supporters Trust and the FF.

We are looking at the future and it is positive the Club wants to engage with the Supporters Trust - that is what the MoU is all about; the best example of this is the ‘Fans Takeover’ games v Girona and Watford.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Mike Graham

[Mike Graham]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

At least they are showing a willing to change approach and we should react positively to it

Thanks 1995.  There is definitely a change of approach by the Club and the Trust are determined to work with them for the benefit of supporters and our Club.  We cannot afford to screw this up.  
 

No doubt a small minority of fans do not want us to engage and do not trust the Club representatives; the vast majority I believe are supportive of constructive engagement and us giving constructive criticism where due.  I talk with non message board supporters everyday and they want the Trust to have a hands on relationship with the Club.

[roversfan99]

The proactivity regarding consultation and fan involvement is definitely a positive.

A club run by wealthy owners seeing if the supporters will fund stadium renovations is disgusting and indefensible.