Jump to content

If we stay up... Give us the family stand back.


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Worth discussion, I'd say as someone who has a West stand season ticket.  Don't know what the guys in W6/7 would think but behind the goals seems to make sense. Simpler still is for 5000 to 6000 of us wanting tickets for the games. 

We don't have 5/6000 fans wanting seats - with the exception of "make or break" games I'd suggest 4,500 maximum.

https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/st-mirren/attendances

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I sit in the Family stand with my 2 and for the past few season I can't remember a game where it has sold out. There were plenty empty seat V Dundee Utd before anyone says it was sold out then :)

What  is the harm in letting the club earing extra cash for the old firm games, it could mean a new player at the end of the day, not sure what the numbers are.

Prices for the family stand inc my 2 are under £300 which I think is cheap as chips.

If the club are making money for the sake of a few games I am all for it.

What I think should be done automatically is that we are charged say £50 for all old firm games and the tickets are posted out automatically.

Its a ball ache trying to get out of work to get tickets 10-2 when you work 9-5.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kevo_smfc said:

I've not looked through all of the pages on this topic, so apologies if I have missed anything.

At the Killie game, the guy in front of me said that there was only around a 400 attendance difference between the Killie game and the Celtic game.

Are we charging OF fans more per head, than we would be  housing our own fans in the family stand? I just wanted to check the weigh up in difference of income.

I think if the club starts to move in the right direction, which I believe it is gradually starting to, putting more points on the board and climbing the table, we can increase our home gates. 

We charge more for these games, they’re charged significantly more than some of the options available in the family stand on other match days. 
 

the income from last season was a six figure sum & allowed for a 10% increase to the player budget. Confirmed by DN & GLS respectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We charge more for these games, they’re charged significantly more than some of the options available in the family stand on other match days. 
 

the income from last season was a six figure sum & allowed for a 10% increase to the player budget. Confirmed by DN & GLS respectively. 

Based on spin - a dubious calculation disregarding the fact that OF fans had previously been accommodated in W6/7 which looked even more iffy when the 2019 Accounts were published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Based on spin - a dubious calculation disregarding the fact that OF fans had previously been accommodated in W6/7 which looked even more iffy when the 2019 Accounts were published.

New Year, still BTB calling our chairman a liar/ spinning his words when it suits him. It compares what we do for nine teams against what we do for the other two, perfectly acceptable comparison. The old W6/W7 model was under an old BOD and irrelevant to this season or last. You seem to have backed down from the 2019 accounts going to show he was lying to them just being apparently “iffy” step in the right direction I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
I hate the view of a game from behind the goals.  If I was a ST holder in the West Stand I would object just for that reason.

And I personally prefer being behind the goals, but didn't have the option to object before being told I'd have to move stand for selected games.

Bring back the days when we could change ends at half time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

^^^^^^^^^

Then feel free to ignore it rather than keep it going!

The problem with ignoring it is that it  doesn't help the inane drivel that appears in almost every thread.

He's almost back to top form, itching to post in every thread that his name isn't the last post.

Rarely contributing anything new/informative/amusing or worthwhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I hate the view of a game from behind the goals.  If I was a ST holder in the West Stand I would object just for that reason.

I agree with this, especially in a stadium as low as years. It’s decent at the likes of Killie and Hearts with a high gradient which provides a decent view, but in our stadium it’s quite pish.

3 hours ago, GeordieBuddie said:

What I think should be done automatically is that we are charged say £50 for all old firm games and the tickets are posted out automatically.

That would just deter me even more, possibly to the point of not having a season ticket. I would have no intention of taking my two boys to a bigotfest, and being asked to pay extra money for games I wouldn’t want to attend would just put me off the ST entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kevo_smfc said:

I think there is a sentimental value to the West Stand. It has become the home of many fans who sat in the Northbank at Love Street and to many giving up a seat that you purchased during the move from the old ground means a lot.

The Northbank boys in W7 have also worked hard to generate an atmosphere in that corner.  

The board apologists will tell you that moving seat is no big deal, the reality is this idea is getting close to the logical conclusion of those who argue that at least 3 times a year the board should maximise the bigot pound ahead of our fans. 
 

I sense this post could act as some kind of weird bat signal ...... here come the discredited claims of 10% increases,  six figure sums yada, yada yada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

The problem with ignoring it is that it  doesn't help the inane drivel that appears in almost every thread I Post. 

I'm almost back to top form, itching to post in every thread that my name isn't the last post.

I rarely contribute anything new/informative/amusing or worthwhile. 

Still. You keep posting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

The problem with ignoring it is that it  doesn't help the inane drivel that appears in almost every thread.

He's almost back to top form, itching to post in every thread that his name isn't the last post.

Rarely contributing anything new/informative/amusing or worthwhile. 

If proof were needed check his hilarious response to this. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I'm just giving him a taste of what he does to others - replying with exactly the same point(s) irrespective of what the other person has said. The big difference, of course, is that what I am repeatedly replying with hasn't been proven wrong. emoji38.png

No one cares, your point is lost about a hunner posts ago, that's what happened with BEK, same thing.

Just feeds his ego, you will not stop him or his tunnel vision, hes a numbskull. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2020 at 2:49 PM, bazil85 said:

New Year, still BTB calling our chairman a liar/ spinning his words when it suits him. It compares what we do for nine teams against what we do for the other two, perfectly acceptable comparison. The old W6/W7 model was under an old BOD and irrelevant to this season or last. You seem to have backed down from the 2019 accounts going to show he was lying to them just being apparently “iffy” step in the right direction I suppose.

GLS was trying to spin away an unpopular decision so he made a statement that used a comparison with a situation that never existed. Even this invalid comparison became unbeleivable after the 2019 Accounts were published.

It was spin when the organ grinder said it last April, spin when his monkey repeated it and hysterical drivel trying to dispute it now - it's last year's "flame war" and I remain satisfied with my POV.

I note your continued attempts to confuse the meaning of spin, you continue to avoid moving in any direction in the misguided hope that you can stifle debate on the forum.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:
22 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

 

 

GLS was trying to spin away an unpopular decision so he made a statement that used a comparison with a situation that never existed. Even this invalid comparison became unbelievable after the 2019 Accounts were published.

Incorrect, comparison between what we do with nine clubs against what we do with two, so it does exist. Much more relevant comparison to something this BOD have never done and previously said wasn’t an option they wanted to explore. That’s my opinion it’s more relevant anyway, you don’t have to agree with it but it doesn’t make it wrong. I believe he was truthful, you believe he wasn’t, that is also fine. The 2019 accounts show nothing remotely conclusive on the player budget or income from the two stand arrangement.

It was spin when the organ grinder said it last April, spin when his monkey repeated it and hysterical drivel trying to dispute it now - it's last year's "flame war" and I remain satisfied with my POV.

I disagree, I choose to believe neither lied and feel that it is backed to a degree with calculations we can use on the income & on player wage media stories (all we really have to go on because figures not disclosed). You’re welcome to your POV, I just don’t believe it and don’t think calling GLS & DN liars puts some SMFC “fans” in a very good light.

I note your continued attempts to confuse the meaning of spin, you continue to avoid moving in any direction in the misguided hope that you can stifle debate on the forum.

You can call it spin all you want, it’s not. You’re calling them liars. Even if we go back a step and were to accept (note to make this very clear to you because I know you hugely struggle with this sort of thing, this IS NOT me changing opinion) that it should have been two stands vs one stand +W6/W7. If that was accepted and you think it merits spin comparing one stand vs two, you are still calling them liars with the “Even this invalid comparison became unbelievable after the 2019 Accounts were published.” point

 

Anyway done to death, some people just can’t let it go but feel you’ll just have to deal with it. Not likely going to change until we increase fan numbers/ BTB completes and it’s potentially put to a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...