40% empty...

Really? The complete lower tier all around 3 quarters of the ground that was the old standing section, they tried to squeeze as many seats in as possible during the 90s, well known as one of the most uncomfortable grounds to sit in.

 

Over what period of time? 6/7 years. Bristol's done it in under a year so how's it the same as Oakwell?

 

Does it matter - still on same site - still Ashton gate just redeveloped

 

Didn't find it a problem

 

So is Spurs not a new stadium?

 

Filling the corners in would be a start, always liked the Hawthornes with what they have done.

 

Most of it on a new site and only incorporates part of the old site so yes - Oakwell and Ashton gate just replaced existing stands

 

I’ve got a picture of a MK 11 escort I had but I’m glad I’ve got new one !

 

Nit picking at it's best.

 

You're the one that started the digging - Ethihad new yes, Emirates yes - Ashton Gate - no. Oakwell 3/4 rebuilt not a new stadium

 

Really. Jesus, you've nit picked Bristol City out of this comment and completely taken the whole topic out of context. Whether you class it as a new stadium or not Bristol Sport do. Still stick to my original comment that new stadiums are not all soulless there's some fantastic designs. Have a good evening.


There's some fantastic new stadiums with brilliant designs Wembley, Emirates, Etihad, new White Hart Lane, Bristol City, smaller stadiums like the New York Stadium

 

And you but still don't agree it's new - Oakwell isn't but rebuilt

 

I don't think soulless necessarily means lacking atmosphere. It's more to do with individual features for me.

Lots of new grounds are nice but are all very similar, whereas the older grounds have had bits changed and added over time.

I visited Accrington Stanley last season. It's a tiny ground but I really enjoyed the experience, much as I like going to Brentford and Fulham, which have things that mark them out as individuals.

Rotherham is quirky for a new stadium, whereas Donny is pretty much the opposite.

 

Nothing wrong with the east stand. All it needs is drink holders at catering, better drainage system to stop puddles in the stand when we get a bit of rain, the ability to sell every seat including the gangway nearest north stand and the bird **** removed from seats that isn't checked on a game by game basis.

 

Statistics can be interpreted in different ways.
With the closure of half the west stand, and the restrictions on the lower east stand near the away fans, we have effectively 15,000 home tickets available
I think we average around 11,500 to 12,000 home fans, so we fill 76% of the home seats.
The fact that we have a 6,000 away stand skews the percentages. Even if we could sell 18,000 home tickets, we couldn't accommodate them, and when we get a poor away support it makes it look even worse.

 

The away stand is splittable if there's a need to do it and the will exists. The restrictions elsewhere are also avoidable if we weren't penny pinching over stewarding costs. Our average attendance may compare well with historical figures, but it has been boosted by more away fans than was the case in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

We've averaged just over 12,000 home fans in the last two seasons.

 

I don't get this argument.
How can you help what the size of your ground is? Queens Park get a few hundred but their home ground holds 51,000. By this reasoning they should be getting 40,000 plus simply because the ground has a large capacity.
If our ground held as much as say Bournemouth's then we would be full to capacity whilst playing in the championship.
Let's pull oakwell down then and build a smaller ground so our % goes up.

 

The only aspect of it that is relevant imo is supply and demand. We can supply 23,000 tickets but sell around 12,000 which suggests to me that we have set the price too high for the demand for the product.

 

It's not that simple though is it. At what price would demand lead to a full stadium?