|
|
Post by joe on May 3, 2016 9:54:10 GMT
FB - everyone is going to be shoe horned in which is fine until something goes wrong like Hillsborough. Slightly OTT and dramatic even for your standards cp! |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 3, 2016 12:10:01 GMT
Fb,
As I walked around the new development in the north east corner of the ground on Sunday, it struck me that this has significantly reduced the ground capacity in this area.
I was talking to several IC members recently who were not best pleased with this capacity reduction. The North East corner had a 'Brighton & Hove Albion' North Stand feel during the sold out T20 matches in the past. A place where the true fan stood, drank their beer, and supported the team vocally and at times rowdily.
BUT, as we have discussed before, Ian Waring, the club's Operations Officer, decided a few years ago, in his wisdom, to reduce the new ground's 7,000 attendance capacity to 5,000 due to the desire for 'spectator quality viewing'. Therefore, this capacity reduction should have little sway over the SOLD OUT notices, hopefully, this summer. The new offices may have reduced the standing capacity by up to 500 people but they will be encouraged to sit down elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 3, 2016 12:19:09 GMT
Fb, As I walked around the new development in the north east corner of the ground on Sunday, it struck me that this has significantly reduced the ground capacity in this area.I was talking to several IC members recently who were not best pleased with this capacity reduction. The North East corner had a 'Brighton & Hove Albion' North Stand feel during the sold out T20 matches in the past. A place where the true fan stood, drank their beer, and supported the team vocally and at times rowdily. BUT, as we have discussed before, Ian Waring, the club's Operations Officer, decided a few years ago, in his wisdom, to reduce the new ground's 7,000 attendance capacity to 5,000 due to the desire for 'spectator quality viewing'. Therefore, this capacity reduction should have little sway over the SOLD OUT notices, hopefully, this summer. The new offices may have reduced the capacity by up to 750 people but they will be encouraged to sit elsewhere. I wonder where exactly they will be asked to sit if the rest of the ground is full?! 750 lost souls x 6 matches x (£26 ticket plus say £10 refreshments) = £162,000. What is the projected rental income from the new offices? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 3, 2016 12:33:39 GMT
Fb,
My point being, as the ground capacity has been reduced to 5,000, even though the ground can hold up to 7,000, the loss of the 750 capacity is irrelevant.
Those who would have stood in the North East corner will be ushered elsewhere. There is now potentially 1,250 spaces still available unlike the previous 2,000 which will never be used due to 'spectator quality viewing'.
So, the club have sacrificed 1,250 x £20 each potential sell-out T20 home match = £25,000 rather than the previous £40,000. Meanwhile, Sussex CCC should garner over £100,000 pa from renting the offices.
To be fair to Waring, the local council has a say over attendance figures at T20. If memory serves, it is about if there was a fire, can the present size of outfield comfortably hold the numbers attending.
Even so, I have never understood why the club boasts one capacity figure and then, in practice, uses another that is 2,000 less.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 3, 2016 13:00:08 GMT
Fb, My point being, as the ground capacity has been reduced to 5,000, even though the ground can hold up to 7,000, the loss of the 750 capacity is irrelevant. Those who would have stood in the North East corner will be ushered elsewhere. There is now potentially 1,250 spaces still available unlike the previous 2,000 which will never be used due to 'spectator quality viewing'. So, the club have sacrificed 1,250 x £20 each potential sell-out T20 home match = £25,000 rather than the previous £40,000. Meanwhile, Sussex CCC should garner over £100,000 pa from renting the offices. To be fair to Waring, the local council has a say over attendance figures at T20. If memory serves, it is about if there was a fire, can the present size of outfield comfortably hold the numbers attending. Even so, I have never understood why the club boasts one capacity figure and then, in practice, uses another that is 2,000 less. IIRC, the 5,000 capacity was adhered to last season. If that's right, then is the club going to compromise 'spectator quality viewing' by increasing the capacity to 5,750?! If it doesn't, then I'm not sure where you would "usher" the extra 750 to. What part of the ground can absorb this extra number? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your/Waring's explanation, so I apologise if that's the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 3, 2016 13:16:33 GMT
If that's right, then is the club going to compromise 'spectator quality viewing' by increasing the capacity to 5,750?!
A good point. Only Ian Waring would hold the answer, although it would be foolish, surely, to drop the 5,000 capacity again to 4,250 or whatever the actual decreased figure may be?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 3, 2016 13:27:31 GMT
If that's right, then is the club going to compromise 'spectator quality viewing' by increasing the capacity to 5,750?!A good point. Only Ian Waring would hold the answer, although it would be barmy, surely, to drop the 5,000 capacity again to 4,250 or whatever the actual decreased figure is? I agree, fluffy. The bottom line, surely, is that we appear to have lost 750 'spaces' in the ground, no matter how you measure the 'ground capacity. If the club is now willing to increase the capacity to 5,750 (from 5,000), then it could have collected additional income from that increased capacity without building the offices. On this basis, the income sacrifice could be substantially greater than the potential rental income from the development - and we've spent £x00,000 on the offices themselves!! |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 3, 2016 14:54:03 GMT
Fb
I am at the ground and spoke to Zac. He stated that the 5,000 ground capacity for home T20s remains the same. Later, this was confirmed by Jim May who had a brief word with me after being told about our Forum discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 3, 2016 15:24:19 GMT
Fb I am at the ground and spoke to Zac. He stated that the 5,000 ground capacity for home T20s remains the same. Later, this was confirmed by Jim May who had a brief word with me after being told about our Forum discussion. Thanks for asking about that, S&F. This seems to confirm what I thought. Having lost 750 spaces in the NE corner, we've now found an extra 750 spaces in other parts of the ground. Otherwise we couldn't maintain the 5,000 total capacity! So, why couldn't we just have found those extra 750 spaces before and increased the capacity to 5,750, and not built the offices? I appreciate you may not be able to answer this yourself, so we'll await further clarification. The confusion arises, I think, because the club appears to be able to nominate the ground capacity at whatever level it chooses, provided it's below 7,000. By stating that the ground capacity is unaltered, the destruction of spectator space in the NE corner is masked - unless of course you think it through! |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on May 3, 2016 18:06:14 GMT
As a 5ft 6in lady I would like to say well done to the club for increasing the banking, I might be able to see something of the cricket at that end of the ground now! I thought it looked better, now I know it wasn't my eyes playing tricks!
|
|
|
|
Post by coolbox on May 3, 2016 23:21:51 GMT
Fb I am at the ground and spoke to Zac. He stated that the 5,000 ground capacity for home T20s remains the same. Later, this was confirmed by Jim May who had a brief word with me after being told about our Forum discussion. Thanks for asking about that, S&F. This seems to confirm what I thought. Having lost 750 spaces in the NE corner, we've now found an extra 750 spaces in other parts of the ground. Otherwise we couldn't maintain the 5,000 total capacity! So, why couldn't we just have found those extra 750 spaces before and increased the capacity to 5,750, and not built the offices? I appreciate you may not be able to answer this yourself, so we'll await further clarification. The confusion arises, I think, because the club appears to be able to nominate the ground capacity at whatever level it chooses, provided it's below 7,000. By stating that the ground capacity is unaltered, the destruction of spectator space in the NE corner is masked - unless of course you think it through! There would appear to be some discrepancy as to the ground capacity at Hove. Clearly it is essential that this is clarified as to exceed the known capacity could have severe safety implications. It was always implied and indeed reported during Dave Brooks' tenure that the capacity was 7000. This was certainly reported in a SCCC Blog (4th Paragraph) in 2014 and indeed in the Argus (Penultimate Paragraph) in 2007. www.sussexcricket.co.uk/blog-article/jim-parks-gillette-trophy-sussexccc?A=SearchResult&SearchID=2127811&ObjectID=5014142&ObjectType=35www.theargus.co.uk/sport/1494633.Adams_backs_his_bowlers/One might then draw the conclusion that the capacity was 7000 in both 2007 and 2014, and most likely the same between those two dates. Clearly a drop in capacity to 5000 represents a very severe potential loss of revenue of some £50,000-£60,000 per sell out T20 match or £300,000-£400,000 per annum. This is a sum which would enable SCCC to set aside a sizeable reserve fund to cover at least some of the much discussed depreciation provision. This also begs the question of whether the 750 extra spaces which appear to have been 'found in other parts of the ground' could possibly be part of the 2000 spaces which appear to have been lost since 2014, which leaves one wondering if there's any chance that we might come across the other 1250 before the T20 starts. I do apologise if this post sounds somewhat cynical or sarcastic, but all the facts and statements do seem to contradict one another. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 4, 2016 9:42:07 GMT
Fb and other posters who have queried the ground capacity,Our discussion yesterday on ground capacity aroused much interest amongst the Sussex hierarchy and given our Forum has attempted to resolve this mystery over several years, I believe we have, and finally, a comprehensive answer. All credit to the Sussex staff, yesterday, for reacting so quickly to our posts. It seems we are regularly monitored and read by them and their reaction shows how our growing and successful Forum is being treated with the respect it deserves. After first talking to the Club CEO who confirmed the ground capacity won’t be diluted by the new offices; for this to be confirmed by the Club Chairman a little later; and finally, the piece de resistance, the Club Operations Officer, Ian Waring, who sought me out then sat down and told me in great length, the precise details of how the “complexities” of the Hove ground capacity works. Waring explained the figure of 5,000 is the minimum when tickets go on sale. Then, there are variables that can increase this figure, as the capacity changes from game to game. Examples : The SKY camera presence: Size of boundaries: The location of the pitch used: Where the sight screens are positioned Apart from SKY these variables may only be known a few days before a match. For example, the first T20 home game against Somerset on June 1st will have a lower capacity than the Surrey game two days later. This is primarily because of the SKY presence.  Waring refers to this as the ground's "wriggle room”, although the difference may only be 200 or 300. The club could decide to up the Surrey capacity on June 3rd to 5,700 - the grounds absolute maximum - depending on the early take up of tickets and the weather forecast. A sunny disposition on a Friday evening against the old foe and with no SKY cameras could be a financial bonanza for the club. So, milk it to the max and let’s get those beers flowing! A general top T20 home match and 5,500 is the usual maximum capacity depending if all the variables are favourable. On the other hand, Wright and Davis' decision on the team selection, size of boundaries and which pitch to use can affect ground capacity by as much as 300 or the loss, potentially, of up to £6,000! The North East corner which hasn't been built on will remain a combo of sitting and standing. But as Waring points out, offices like ‘Rockpool’ who have a lengthy wooden verandah, an arranged hospitality evening of say 60 guests, all add to the overall attendance figure, where the office tickets are not complementary. While there may be no more WAGS hut or a burger and chips outlet, the offices could generate more revenue for the club during a T20 match than before. One controversy is the bar which is now tucked away and almost invisible behind the new offices. On a busy night, queuing could be a problem but until the T20s begin, only then can any logistical flaws come to the surface and be resolved.  Meanwhile, I gained the impression the club's previous 'high quality spectator viewing' stance has been diluted, somewhat, by the need for attracting more robust revenues. Bums on seats is now, perhaps, more the order of the day! Also, a query: What exactly is a 'sell-out'? Are the signs outside the ground merely a marketing ploy or do they mean exactly what they say? As Waring pointed out, "We never want to turn anyone away." Perhaps, 'sell-out' means all the original 5,000 tickets sold through the club shop have gone and not the wriggle room that then prevails? The ground capacity for the Pakistani touring game in July will be similar to the T20s. Only if a temporary stand is introduced and placed next to the new offices on the concrete car parking area can the club reach its publicised 7,000 capacity. But this is financially a risky venture and unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 4, 2016 10:45:37 GMT
Thank you, S&F, for such a comprehensive report on your discussions with the Sussex management. It explains quite clearly the variables that can alter the ground capacity, depending on the circumstances of each match, and I found this interesting. But - the discussions seem to have concentrated on the match variables, without reference to the undeniable permanent loss of 750 seats, on which bums could have been sitting. You have said: "I gained the impression the club's previous 'high quality spectator viewing' stance has been diluted, somewhat, by the need for attracting more robust revenues. Bums on seats is now, perhaps, more the order of the day"
What doesn't seem to be acknowledged is that, whatever variables are applied to any particular match, there are always going to be 750 places that could have been filled in previous years, but which are no longer available from 2016 onwards. Whatever capacity the club go for at any particular match, could they not have added 750 to it, unless of course this would have breached the 7,000 absolute limit? Does anyone disagree that the match income potential has therefore fallen?
PS I'm not sure if the remaining NE punters will produce the same Friday Night atmosphere, and whilst queuing for beer, I'm not sure the playing area will be visible. Anyway, we shall see how this works in practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 4, 2016 14:11:00 GMT
Fb
I take your point but the slackening of the "spectator quality experience" now offers the spaces which were always there in the first place but not taken up?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 4, 2016 14:35:24 GMT
OK - next time the ground is 'full up' or 'sold out', pop over and see me. I will then show you where a further 750 people could have been accommodated if the offices hadn't been built.  |
|
