Family Stand

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

I think you should give up, ur arse has been handed to you on a plate...

Incorrect, he tried & failed. Made up claims that weren’t there & even disproved himself by talking about the logical point that better performances = bigger crowds.  

[Rascal]

I would like to think that there are a combination of reasons which have led to our crowds going up. No doubt at all that “more wins” brings in “more people” but looking specifically at the efforts of the club and many others it is great to see the family stand busier. Keep it up.

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Bit of a exaggeration there Bazil...  maybe the odd few 

 

There were large groups in W1 & W2, they got it right at the goal. Same apparently happened in the main stand. 
 

Any away fans in home ends for clubs with Celtic’s rep would cause me concern. 

[HSS]

 

Just now, bazil85 said:

There were large groups in W1 & W2, they got it right at the goal. Same apparently happened in the main stand. 
 

Any away fans in home ends for clubs with Celtic’s rep would cause me concern. 

I sit in the Main Stand at the Control Room end I had a good look around me for sellic fans and I identified 2 Hardly what I would call a large group The 2 I identified were absolutely fine and I even had a wee laugh with them at half time

What is sellics rep?

 

[waldorf34]

53 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Extra police & steward costs have been discussed before & the amount cost wasn’t very much.
 

Even at that, with the extra Celtic fans in home stands (which they’d likely know would happen) I can’t imagine there was much/ any reduction in policing that would make a dent in cost. 

I sit next to police inspector, there was a large reduction in police costs ,more than enough to offset 240 punters at the gate!

[BuddieinEK]

1 hour ago, HSS said:

 

I sit in the Main Stand at the Control Room end I had a good look around me for sellic fans and I identified 2 Hardly what I would call a large group The 2 I identified were absolutely fine and I even had a wee laugh with them at half time

What is sellics rep?

 

 

22 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

I sit next to police inspector, there was a large reduction in police costs ,more than enough to offset 240 punters at the gate!

This is no place for reasoned debate or eye witness factual accounts.

Baz knows better. Always. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, HSS said:

 

I sit in the Main Stand at the Control Room end I had a good look around me for sellic fans and I identified 2 Hardly what I would call a large group The 2 I identified were absolutely fine and I even had a wee laugh with them at half time

What is sellics rep?

 

Well, there were far more than ‘two’ 

 

Celtic & their blue brothers have a terrible rep for trouble & violence. Both domestically & abroad. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

I sit next to police inspector, there was a large reduction in police costs ,more than enough to offset 240 punters at the gate!

The second stand holds far more than 240 people. As said, this argument came up before and the average game calculations showed it wasn’t much of a difference. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

This is no place for reasoned debate or eye witness factual accounts.

Baz knows better. Always. 

Double standards noted. 

‘Eye witness factual accounts’ when it suits (although I’m pretty sure he didn’t go round the stadium looking for Celtic fans), here say when you’re crying about the Kibble. 😂😂

[stlucifer]

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Double standards noted. 

‘Eye witness factual accounts’ when it suits (although I’m pretty sure he didn’t go round the stadium looking for Celtic fans), here say when you’re crying about the Kibble. 😂😂

I don't understand why you can't just accept that, in this instance, you were wrong in your assumption Baz. Not giving the @rse cheeks the second stand has, so far, been a shrewd move by the club. 

[portmahomack saint]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Extra police & steward costs have been discussed before & the amount cost wasn’t very much.
 

Even at that, with the extra Celtic fans in home stands (which they’d likely know would happen) I can’t imagine there was much/ any reduction in policing that would make a dent in cost. 

Bazil everyone on here knows you will never ever admit you might possibly be wrong on the family stand or anything else for that matter come to think about it.. we all get that, 

But the fact is great work is being done by many people at the club as the SLO has stated, and that does include keeping the family stand and sending out the right message. 

Choosing to make the South Stand into a family stand and then tossing them same supporters out their seats to accommodate the bigoted hoards is the worse decision the club has made since moving to Greenhill Road IMO.  totally sends out the wrong message and doing so will see our future support and club slowly die a very slow death..

As for actual game for once felt like a home game with the added bonus of walking back to my car parked in the car park it was great that I didn't have to walk past the green brigade singing their colourful and intimidating songs... Well done the Board for listening to the fans 

 

[Tommy]

You could give the bigots 3 stands and they would still be in the home end.

The club is being fair by treating all other clubs the exact same way, 1 stand and no more. 

[Cumbriansaint72]

6 minutes ago, Tommy said:

You could give the bigots 3 stands and they would still be in the home end.

The club is being fair by treating all other clubs the exact same way, 1 stand and no more. 

I wonder if other clubs will follow suit.

[Slarti]

For clarity (and for the hard of thinking), someone saying "this was what I experienced" is eyewitness testimony, someone saying "this is what someone else told me they experienced" is hearsay.

[Slarti]

You could give the bigots 3 stands and they would still be in the home end.
The club is being fair by treating all other clubs the exact same way, 1 stand and no more. 

It's not unheard of for St Mirren supporters to be in the home ends of clubs with smaller capacities than we have. As long as these fans behave, it's not much of an issue.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

I don't understand why you can't just accept that, in this instance, you were wrong in your assumption Baz. Not giving the @rse cheeks the second stand has, so far, been a shrewd move by the club. 

How has it been? If we gave them a second stand we would have had the income from them filling two stands on top of the extra income generated from performing well in the league. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, portmahomack saint said:

Bazil everyone on here knows you will never ever admit you might possibly be wrong on the family stand or anything else for that matter come to think about it.. we all get that, 

But the fact is great work is being done by many people at the club as the SLO has stated, and that does include keeping the family stand and sending out the right message. 

Choosing to make the South Stand into a family stand and then tossing them same supporters out their seats to accommodate the bigoted hoards is the worse decision the club has made since moving to Greenhill Road IMO.  totally sends out the wrong message and doing so will see our future support and club slowly die a very slow death..

As for actual game for once felt like a home game with the added bonus of walking back to my car parked in the car park it was great that I didn't have to walk past the green brigade singing their colourful and intimidating songs... Well done the Board for listening to the fans 

 

Rubbish, I will happily put my hands up when wrong. I am just not seeing how my view is wrong and so far, no one has explained to me why it's wrong. If we gave Celtic and rangers two stands, does that suddenly stop all the extra fans turning up because we are performing well? That seems pretty baseless to me. 

For me, it was more just bitter fans who would rather see empty seats than take their money. Madness in my view. 

[BuddieinEK]

Reminded me of someone. 😎😂

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Rubbish, I will happily put my hands up when wrong. I am just not seeing how my view is wrong and so far, no one has explained to me why it's wrong. If we gave Celtic and rangers two stands, does that suddenly stop all the extra fans turning up because we are performing well? That seems pretty baseless to me. 

For me, it was more just bitter fans who would rather see empty seats than take their money. Madness in my view. 

Give us an example of you admitting you were wrong. 

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, Cumbriansaint72 said:

I wonder if other clubs will follow suit.

Well Killie and Motherwell  did it recently. 

Hearts only give them half a stand now.

They also get less at Aberdeen now than they used to get. 

It would be nice if the Fakes, Livy, Arabs and Ross C would follow suit but that is a choice for them to make. 

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

How has it been? If we gave them a second stand we would have had the income from them filling two stands on top of the extra income generated from performing well in the league. 

Sorry but you are working on theory. Your own. Others are stating facts. The facts are that you intimated that we'd be worse off, they said not. You are now trying to justify your claim by suggesting that the number of Saints' fans would have increased by the same margin if only one part of the process had taken place. ie. The improvement in results.

I could surmise that our results would not have been as good if the club hadn't stopped the two stands rule as it would have detracted from the level and numbers of the home support therefore affecting the performance. You would probably suggest that this is wrong because your guesswork is better than mine.

Sound ridiculous? Or perhaps familiar?

[bazil85]

56 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Give us an example of you admitting you were wrong. 

Can you give me an example when you did the same? 

[bazil85]

31 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Sorry but you are working on theory. Your own. Others are stating facts. The facts are that you intimated that we'd be worse off, they said not. You are now trying to justify your claim by suggesting that the number of Saints' fans would have increased by the same margin if only one part of the process had taken place. ie. The improvement in results.

I could surmise that our results would not have been as good if the club hadn't stopped the two stands rule as it would have detracted from the level and numbers of the home support therefore affecting the performance. You would probably suggest that this is wrong because your guesswork is better than mine.

Sound ridiculous? Or perhaps familiar?

Double standards, no one can claim it as fact we are better off because of the two stand situation & not the greatly improved on park performances. 
 

It also can’t be said that we wouldn’t be better off still had we kept the two arrangement. I get some fans are really bitter about it but hell mend them, not attending only hurts our club. 
 

I’m not sure where you are getting me making statements of fact regarding who would & wouldn’t attend games or what our results would have been. 
 

 

[bazil85]

23 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

Accept u got ur arse handed to you, just the way it is....

But it’s wrong. No luck 

[stlucifer]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Double standards, no one can claim it as fact we are better off because of the two stand situation & not the greatly improved on park performances. 
 

It also can’t be said that we wouldn’t be better off still had we kept the two arrangement. I get some fans are really bitter about it but hell mend them, not attending only hurts our club. 
 

I’m not sure where you are getting me making statements of fact regarding who would & wouldn’t attend games or what our results would have been. 
 

 

But it IS a FACT that our attendances are up despite not giving the @rsecheeks nearly half our ground. No ifs, no buts.

You, on the other hand, are trying to justify your original claim that we would be worse off by suggesting we aren't any better off because we would have been better off by more if we had given half our ground, even though you have no substance for that claim. That is absolute nonsense.