|
Post by dieguito88 on Apr 22, 2016 14:16:27 GMT
Think they should have given a few options to the season ticket holders. I would have preferred The Coates Stadium. Bet365 stadium just doesn't roll off the tongue. Most people will still call it the brit anyway. The Stanley Matthews stadium was perfect for me
|
|
|
Post by greebo on Apr 22, 2016 14:21:06 GMT
At the end of the day what a stadium is known as is largely in the hands of the fans. How about some thing relevant to the new sponsors but a bit more identifiable to the fans. "The Nou Casino" would give a nod to our Spanish links or "The Casino of Dreams" recognises the joy and heartache we fans go through every season
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Apr 22, 2016 14:21:59 GMT
Wank name end of.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 22, 2016 14:25:52 GMT
I don't think any of that is relevant John. If you asked Coca Cola would they prefer to call it the Coca Cola stadium or the Coca Cola Britannia, which one do you think they would go for? The same applies to Shell, Barclays and any other sponsor you can think of including bet365. The sponsor are paying a huge amount of money to call the stadium what they want to call it, as Old Stokie says above, maybe bet365 should change their name to bet365 Britannia. Thank God you're here, Paul. This thread doesn't half show how bloody thick some of our fanbase are. Earlier in the thread we had people asking what was wrong with calling it "The Britannia 365 Stadium", seriously?! Hey Emirates Airlines come & gives us tens of millions of pounds to sponsor our stadium & we'll call it "The Britannia Airlines stadium" in return.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 14:37:03 GMT
Such insight. Profound, even.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 14:39:29 GMT
To be fair, I think with everything the Coates family has done for us they can call it whatever they like.
It'll always be 'The Brit' to the people as I've mentioned before. If the club can generate more money from this in any way I'm all for it.
It will look strange on the front of the Stadium with the 'Britannia Stadium'
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Apr 22, 2016 14:45:21 GMT
Think of the money that's going to be pumped into Stoke, as I mentioned earlier we'll be top 4 contenders in 3 or so years!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 14:52:35 GMT
It is 28,300 less segregation for league games. For Cup games if the away side has the whole of the south stand, (as Man U and Everton have done in the past) then the crowd could reach 28,300 and with the extra 1,800 in the new corner it could reach 30,100. They could cut the number of seats lost to segregation in league games by expanding the south stand concourse. It is the cramped size and lack of flexibility of the concourse which causes the problem. The concourse is at the legal minimum size it can be. Bigger concourse = more flexibility = fewer seats lost to segregation. If the size of the south stand concourse is the problem that causes us to lose so many seats to segregation, do we know why it isn't a problem for those cup matches where the away team has the whole stand and there are therefore MORE people in the stand? Is it because when you split the stand in two, the H&S rules say you have to have proportionatly LESS people in each part of the divided stand relative to the size of the each concourse? It is probably something as mundane as the numbers of toilets. You can divide the seated area of a stand pretty much how you like - 60/40, 65/35 or 61/39 if you wish. You can't divide the concourse with the same degree of flexibility. It so happens that the concourses on three sides of our ground are bang on the minimum legal size we can get away with - (I think the date of the build is also relevant). Enlarge the concourses (by building out backwards) and you give enough flexibility to divide the concourses to accommodate any seating split you want. The problem certainly is NOT that we have to have 10 or 12 netted off columns of seats - plenty of grounds have far narrower netted areas. Malcolm Clarke will tell you far more about it than I can. EDIT: Don't forget we are talking about a business with a turnover of £100 million who have (after 19 years) not managed to find the money to make the disabled bays high enough so that the occupants can see the pitch when the row in front of them stands up.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 22, 2016 14:58:29 GMT
If it was something like toilets Lakeland , surely it is not beyond the wit of man to address and correct the matter.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 22, 2016 15:01:38 GMT
I don't think any of that is relevant John. If you asked Coca Cola would they prefer to call it the Coca Cola stadium or the Coca Cola Britannia, which one do you think they would go for? The same applies to Shell, Barclays and any other sponsor you can think of including bet365. The sponsor are paying a huge amount of money to call the stadium what they want to call it, as Old Stokie says above, maybe bet365 should change their name to bet365 Britannia. Thank God you're here, Paul. This thread doesn't half show how bloody thick some of our fanbase are. Earlier in the thread we had people asking what was wrong with calling it "The Britannia 365 Stadium", seriously?! Hey Emirates Airlines come & gives us tens of millions of pounds to sponsor our stadium & we'll call it "The Britannia Airlines stadium" in return. This week has shown that outside of the area quite a lot didn't know it even was a sponsor. I don't see why the bet 365 Britannia Stadium would be an issue at all tbh. I don't see the problem with the new name either but there's enough evidence to suggest it wouldn't have mattered to people taken in by sponsorship.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Apr 22, 2016 15:18:33 GMT
If the size of the south stand concourse is the problem that causes us to lose so many seats to segregation, do we know why it isn't a problem for those cup matches where the away team has the whole stand and there are therefore MORE people in the stand? Is it because when you split the stand in two, the H&S rules say you have to have proportionatly LESS people in each part of the divided stand relative to the size of the each concourse? It is probably something as mundane as the numbers of toilets. You can divide the seated area of a stand pretty much how you like - 60/40, 65/35 or 61/39 if you wish. You can't divide the concourse with the same degree of flexibility. It so happens that the concourses on three sides of our ground are bang on the minimum legal size we can get away with - (I think the date of the build is also relevant). Enlarge the concourses (by building out backwards) and you give enough flexibility to divide the concourses to accommodate any seating split you want. The problem certainly is NOT that we have to have 10 or 12 netted off columns of seats - plenty of grounds have far narrower netted areas. Malcolm Clarke will tell you far more about it than I can. EDIT: Don't forget we are talking about a business with a turnover of £100 million who have (after 19 years) not managed to find the money to make the disabled bays high enough so that the occupants can see the pitch when the row in front of them stands up. I agree there is total flexibilty with phsically dividing the seats but not the same flexibilty physically dividing the concourse. But if you can only divide the concourse say 60/40, why not do exactly the same 60/40 divide on the seats? You may be right it is probably something like the toilets can't be divided exactly 60/40! And it does make you wonder why they didn't properly consider this when the stadium was built. Maybe they thought they'd never fill the stadium? Maybe the H&S have changed since it was built? Or maybe they were just incompetant?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 15:23:26 GMT
If it was something like toilets Lakeland , surely it is not beyond the wit of man to address and correct the matter.Yes - you can extend the concourse - as I said above. The point is that the concourse isn't a simple box - it has toilet doors, turnstiles, exit doors, food kiosks and entrance tunnels to each block. So, when the whole concourse is bang on the minimum size legally allowed it is difficult to split it wherever you want - there are too many things (listed in the previous sentence) which force dividing barriers to be in a certain place. Building out the concourses by 10 feet or so would solve these problems - and make the match day experience better for all the fans using them. I think I am correct in saying that the regulations have changed since the Brit was built and we would not be allowed to build the stadium with such small concourses were we building the stadium these days.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 15:29:43 GMT
It is probably something as mundane as the numbers of toilets. You can divide the seated area of a stand pretty much how you like - 60/40, 65/35 or 61/39 if you wish. You can't divide the concourse with the same degree of flexibility. It so happens that the concourses on three sides of our ground are bang on the minimum legal size we can get away with - (I think the date of the build is also relevant). Enlarge the concourses (by building out backwards) and you give enough flexibility to divide the concourses to accommodate any seating split you want. The problem certainly is NOT that we have to have 10 or 12 netted off columns of seats - plenty of grounds have far narrower netted areas. Malcolm Clarke will tell you far more about it than I can. EDIT: Don't forget we are talking about a business with a turnover of £100 million who have (after 19 years) not managed to find the money to make the disabled bays high enough so that the occupants can see the pitch when the row in front of them stands up. I agree there is total flexibilty with phsically dividing the seats but not the same flexibilty physically dividing the concourse. But if you can only divide the concourse say 60/40, why not do exactly the same 60/40 divide on the seats? You may be right it is probably something like the toilets can't be divided exactly 60/40! And it does make you wonder why they didn't properly consider this when the stadium was built. Maybe they thought they'd never fill the stadium? Maybe the H&S have changed since it was built? Or maybe they were just incompetant? We HAVE to offer the away side 2,800 seats if they want them - 3,000 when we build the corner. I honestly don't know the full details of how the split in the concourse works - but I DO know (because people at the club have told me) that the problem is to do with the concourse being too small to have the flexibility needed to avoid a wide segregation zone. As I've said many times on this thread and on others - the answer is VERY simple - extend the concourses backwards ten feet or so. This not only solves the segregation problem but also brings the concourses in the three sides of the ground (Boothen DPD and South) up to the standards they would have to be built to were the stadium being built these days.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Apr 22, 2016 15:30:34 GMT
Click and change eggybread if you're not happy with it, only a username.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Apr 22, 2016 15:31:58 GMT
Thank God you're here, Paul. This thread doesn't half show how bloody thick some of our fanbase are. Earlier in the thread we had people asking what was wrong with calling it "The Britannia 365 Stadium", seriously?! Hey Emirates Airlines come & gives us tens of millions of pounds to sponsor our stadium & we'll call it "The Britannia Airlines stadium" in return. This week has shown that outside of the area quite a lot didn't know it even was a sponsor. I don't see why the bet 365 Britannia Stadium would be an issue at all tbh. I don't see the problem with the new name either but there's enough evidence to suggest it wouldn't have mattered to people taken in by sponsorship. The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Apr 22, 2016 15:34:33 GMT
Call me cynical but I wonder if the advertising exposure from having bet365 plastered all over the dividing sheet is actually worth more than the lost seating revenue?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 22, 2016 15:42:34 GMT
:)I agree there is total flexibilty with phsically dividing the seats but not the same flexibilty physically dividing the concourse. But if you can only divide the concourse say 60/40, why not do exactly the same 60/40 divide on the seats? You may be right it is probably something like the toilets can't be divided exactly 60/40! And it does make you wonder why they didn't properly consider this when the stadium was built. Maybe they thought they'd never fill the stadium? Maybe the H&S have changed since it was built? Or maybe they were just incompetant? We HAVE to offer the away side 2,800 seats if they want them - 3,000 when we build the corner. I honestly don't know the full details of how the split in the concourse works - but I DO know (because people at the club have told me) that the problem is to do with the concourse being too small to have the flexibility needed to avoid a wide segregation zone. As I've said many times on this thread and on others - the answer is VERY simple - extend the concourses backwards ten feet or so. This not only solves the segregation problem but also brings the concourses in the three sides of the ground (Boothen DPD and South) up to the standards they would have to be built to were the stadium being built these days. We could just take the catering areas backwards and have a decent queueing system to them.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Apr 22, 2016 15:50:38 GMT
Call me cynical but I wonder if the advertising exposure from having bet365 plastered all over the dividing sheet is actually worth more than the lost seating revenue? You might have a point there Cynical.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Apr 22, 2016 15:51:06 GMT
At least I'm happy we fill in the corner to make the stadium look more complete! Hopefully it will also be easier to get tickets for the big games from abroad!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 16:06:41 GMT
We HAVE to offer the away side 2,800 seats if they want them - 3,000 when we build the corner. I honestly don't know the full details of how the split in the concourse works - but I DO know (because people at the club have told me) that the problem is to do with the concourse being too small to have the flexibility needed to avoid a wide segregation zone. As I've said many times on this thread and on others - the answer is VERY simple - extend the concourses backwards ten feet or so. This not only solves the segregation problem but also brings the concourses in the three sides of the ground (Boothen DPD and South) up to the standards they would have to be built to were the stadium being built these days. We could just take the catering areas backwards and have a decent queueing system to them. Having the catering kiosks outside but opening into the concourse would probably be a slightly cheaper option but, they might as well bring everything including turnstiles and exit gates out to a new wall ten feet or so back from the existing wall and that would allow for much more space to circulate and queue and watch the concourse TVs. It might cost a £million for each of the three stands but, with turnover expected to top £120 million next season there seems to me to be no reason not to do it. I bet they'd sell more food and drink as well because, at the moment, I have a choice between going to the bogs or getting a drink - there isn't the time to do both. There must be many many people who don't have a snack at half time because of the crush. I realise that the catering is franchised out but, if sales increased, then so could franchise charges.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 22, 2016 16:18:29 GMT
This week has shown that outside of the area quite a lot didn't know it even was a sponsor. I don't see why the bet 365 Britannia Stadium would be an issue at all tbh. I don't see the problem with the new name either but there's enough evidence to suggest it wouldn't have mattered to people taken in by sponsorship. The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding It'll be known as that anyway. And hardly anyone outside of the city seems to realise it was a brand thus diminishing very little.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Apr 22, 2016 16:34:58 GMT
The split is governed by the distance limit a seat can be from a gangway which doesn't allow for complete flexibility.
I suspect our ground was designed by an architect who had never been to a football match and thought disabled people shouldn't leave the house.
It shouldn't be extended without allowing for the new part to fit in with the rest when they decide to knock it down and do it properly.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Apr 22, 2016 16:48:19 GMT
The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding It'll be known as that anyway. And hardly anyone outside of the city seems to realise it was a brand thus diminishing very little. Not really , of course the locals will always call it the Brit . Bet 365 sponsorship is aimed at a global audience
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 22, 2016 17:16:49 GMT
We could just take the catering areas backwards and have a decent queueing system to them. Having the catering kiosks outside but opening into the concourse would probably be a slightly cheaper option but, they might as well bring everything including turnstiles and exit gates out to a new wall ten feet or so back from the existing wall and that would allow for much more space to circulate and queue and watch the concourse TVs. It might cost a £million for each of the three stands but, with turnover expected to top £120 million next season there seems to me to be no reason not to do it. I bet they'd sell more food and drink as well because, at the moment, I have a choice between going to the bogs or getting a drink - there isn't the time to do both. There must be many many people who don't have a snack at half time because of the crush. I realise that the catering is franchised out but, if sales increased, then so could franchise charges. Agree, we din't get anything to eat last time, well they had run out of most things by the end of half time
|
|
|
Post by boweryboy on Apr 22, 2016 17:17:49 GMT
ONLY one corner to be filled in......just two more to go then before it stops being a wind tunnel....
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 22, 2016 17:25:39 GMT
It'll be known as that anyway. And hardly anyone outside of the city seems to realise it was a brand thus diminishing very little. Not really , of course the locals will always call it the Brit . Bet 365 sponsorship is aimed at a global audience Which it would still get.
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Apr 22, 2016 17:29:53 GMT
This week has shown that outside of the area quite a lot didn't know it even was a sponsor. I don't see why the bet 365 Britannia Stadium would be an issue at all tbh. I don't see the problem with the new name either but there's enough evidence to suggest it wouldn't have mattered to people taken in by sponsorship. The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding This. They want the stadium to become casually known as 'the bet365' in the same way as it's become known as 'the Brit' over the years. If they leave the word 'Britannia' in there then there's less chance of that happening. Plus as you say it reduces the impact of the 'bet365' part on TV and radio if you have a long winded official name.
|
|
|
Post by stokey127 on Apr 22, 2016 17:33:10 GMT
Think they should have given a few options to the season ticket holders. I would have preferred The Coates Stadium. Bet365 stadium just doesn't roll off the tongue. Most people will still call it the brit anyway. The Stanley Matthews stadium was perfect for me Why?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Apr 22, 2016 17:34:55 GMT
The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding This. They want the stadium to become casually known as 'the bet365' in the same way as it's become known as 'the Brit' over the years. If they leave the word 'Britannia' in there then there's less chance of that happening. Plus as you say it reduces the impact of the 'bet365' part on TV and radio if you have a long winded official name. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 17:36:50 GMT
The problem being , in the eyes of the sponsor it would still be known as the Brit or brittania stadium . Regardless of the 365 add on . Thereby diminishing the new sponsors branding This. They want the stadium to become casually known as 'the bet365' in the same way as it's become known as 'the Brit' over the years. If they leave the word 'Britannia' in there then there's less chance of that happening. Plus as you say it reduces the impact of the 'bet365' part on TV and radio if you have a long winded official name. On that basis, they'd be better calling it "The bet365 arena" rather than "The bet365 stadium" - that change would cut 2 letters from the name thus leaving bet365 with a bigger percentage of the total!
|
|