A proposal

Main subforum for all things Southport FC
Sandgrounder SE
----------
----------
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:14 pm

A proposal

Post by Sandgrounder SE »

Our terrible home record, going back for years, surely has something to do with the configuration of the ground with the open sides meaning that away teams rarely come under sustained pressure unless there's a big crowd. Even then, the Wembley-style distance between the touchline on the Pop side and the fence doesn't help.
At the same time, I notice that the dug-outs, or shelters or whatever you call them, are now too small for the numbers on the benches and some people have to sit on chairs alongside the shelters.
Why don't we look for some sponsorship for new larger shelters and locate them on the Pop side?
This would offer a new advertising appeal as all the people in the main stand would be looking out at the shelters. They'd also get a better view of the bench action and the 4th official.
It would, more importantly, use up some of that wasted space on the Pop touchline and mean that the players were getting a lot of noise from the benches on that side as well as the noise from the main stand on the opposite side. Probably more people would congregate on the Pop side behind and around the benches.
Any views?
User avatar
micky finn
----------
----------
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by micky finn »

Not a bad idea. Its good to see the bench, adds a bit to the drama.

Getting the sponsorship is the challenge, and if I was running the club and had a £1 to spend it wouldn't be on moving the dug-out.
User avatar
Olá
----------
----------
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by Olá »

micky finn wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:27 pm Not a bad idea. Its good to see the bench, adds a bit to the drama.

Getting the sponsorship is the challenge, and if I was running the club and had a £1 to spend it wouldn't be on moving the dug-out.
The only thing that needs to happen is make it look like the old pop and Jack Carr combo
portexileinbath
1,000 posts
1,000 posts
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2021 1:27 am

Re: A proposal

Post by portexileinbath »

Making the bench longer would mean there would be enough room for LW to sit next to JB, to give him help and advice😉


I am joking !.
User avatar
cavjj
Carl Soloman
Carl Soloman
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:58 am
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by cavjj »

If I was your hypothetical millionaire owner, I would prevent migration between the JC and the Pop side. The ground has configuration and fencing that makes this possible.

While possibly unpopular to those who (myself included) who like to swap ends based on where we’re attacking, my logic is that you keep anyone generating atmosphere in the JC for the whole game.

I’d possibly consider making entry on the Pop side a pound or two cheaper as well. More options for fans and people we’re trying to attract.
sneekes
----------
----------
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:46 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by sneekes »

cavjj wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 8:36 am If I was your hypothetical millionaire owner, I would prevent migration between the JC and the Pop side.
Or you could build a Jack Carr-lite at the far end of the Pop side and a have a migrating atmosphere. It would be more expensive, but is more aligned to what supporters seem to want.
Heck, if you could figure out some sort of mobile bottle bar you could wheel that up there for whichever half we're kicking that way.
Sandgrounder SE
----------
----------
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:14 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Sandgrounder SE »

It’s clear that our present owners do not have the resources for even a modest rebuild of the ground. And at present it’s difficult to justify covering the Pop side. I’m just suggesting a relocation of the benches because it might have some impact on the players and their performance, while making use of the space on the grass and giving main stand supporters something better to look at than largely empty terraces. New shelters would be a bonus and are not ridiculously expensive. The existing ones were installed when teams were allowed fewer substitutes - it’s now 7 for FA Cup games - and had fewer support staff. At a pinch we could just relocate the existing ones, but it shouldn’t be impossible to interest sponsors in part-paying for attractive new shelters.
User avatar
cavjj
Carl Soloman
Carl Soloman
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:58 am
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by cavjj »

Image

I knew our home form was bad, I didn't realise it was *that* bad.

League games only. Blue is NLN - pink is NL.
User avatar
cavjj
Carl Soloman
Carl Soloman
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:58 am
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by cavjj »

Also, while the sample size is too small to really be relevant, interesting to note in this season and the last we win a higher percentage of games shooting towards the Jack Carr in the first half, rather than our favoured second.

When shooting towards the Jack Carr in the first half, this season and last season (league only):
P5 / W2 (40%) / D0 (0%) / L3 (60%)

When shooting towards the Jack Carr in the second half, this season and last season (league only):
P36 / W10 (27.7%) / D9 (25%) / L17 (47.2%)
Gloucester man
750 posts
750 posts
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:58 pm
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by Gloucester man »

Olá wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 6:07 pm
micky finn wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:27 pm Not a bad idea. Its good to see the bench, adds a bit to the drama.

Getting the sponsorship is the challenge, and if I was running the club and had a £1 to spend it wouldn't be on moving the dug-out.
The only thing that needs to happen is make it look like the old pop and Jack Carr combo
Scarisbrick end and poplar
User avatar
Olá
----------
----------
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by Olá »

Gloucester man wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:06 pm
Olá wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 6:07 pm
micky finn wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:27 pm Not a bad idea. Its good to see the bench, adds a bit to the drama.

Getting the sponsorship is the challenge, and if I was running the club and had a £1 to spend it wouldn't be on moving the dug-out.
The only thing that needs to happen is make it look like the old pop and Jack Carr combo
Scarisbrick end and poplar
Jack Carr to a lot of people
User avatar
Ralphy Rylance
Who is Ralphy Rylance?
Who is Ralphy Rylance?
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:48 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Ralphy Rylance »

Gloucester man wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:06 pm
Olá wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 6:07 pm
micky finn wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:27 pm Not a bad idea. Its good to see the bench, adds a bit to the drama.

Getting the sponsorship is the challenge, and if I was running the club and had a £1 to spend it wouldn't be on moving the dug-out.
The only thing that needs to happen is make it look like the old pop and Jack Carr combo
Scarisbrick end and poplar
Popular
We are the nutters, we come from the sea.
We must be nutters to watch SFC.
Liamisdoingagreatjob
----------
----------
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:55 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Liamisdoingagreatjob »

Sandgrounder SE wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:01 am It’s clear that our present owners do not have the resources for even a modest rebuild of the ground. And at present it’s difficult to justify covering the Pop side. I’m just suggesting a relocation of the benches because it might have some impact on the players and their performance, while making use of the space on the grass and giving main stand supporters something better to look at than largely empty terraces. New shelters would be a bonus and are not ridiculously expensive. The existing ones were installed when teams were allowed fewer substitutes - it’s now 7 for FA Cup games - and had fewer support staff. At a pinch we could just relocate the existing ones, but it shouldn’t be impossible to interest sponsors in part-paying for attractive new shelters.
It would also allow another exit from the mainstand to be built rather than the tiny stairs everyone has to exit via...a healthy and safety issue waiting to happen surely..
Sam
----------
----------
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Sam »

Liamisdoingagreatjob wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:40 pm a healthy and safety issue waiting to happen surely..
It's been waiting a long time.

But its much better than it used to be, one of the positive's of the main stand improvements was the railings etc. I remember Alan Prole having a nasty call one game.
User avatar
cavjj
Carl Soloman
Carl Soloman
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:58 am
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by cavjj »

Liamisdoingagreatjob wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:40 pm It would also allow another exit from the mainstand to be built rather than the tiny stairs everyone has to exit via...a healthy and safety issue waiting to happen surely..
The stand has been going for nearly 60 years so we've been waiting quite a while for that stairwell to be a significant safety issue.

Capacity of the stand on the larger side is 784. The stairwell in question is 1.5m wide according to the most recent planning documents. Green guide gives a stairwell flow rate of 73 spectators per minute per metre of width - meaning that stairwell can accomodate 109.5 spectators per minute. Green guide says stadium evacuation must be complete in 8 minutes. At 109.5 spectators per minute that takes a little of 7 minutes to evacuate that area if it were full.

A barrier in the middle of it might be helpful mind.
couille du chien
----------
----------
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:29 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by couille du chien »

Was the nasty call from who wants to be a millionaire
User avatar
DanHayes
Love an AGM me
Love an AGM me
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:27 pm
Location: Southport
Contact:

Re: A proposal

Post by DanHayes »

Sam wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:24 pm One of the positive's of the main stand improvements was the railings etc.
Agree with this but still think the original point about egress from the stand being potentially dangerous is valid. Considering the paddock is no longer used for spectators, they really should have considered additional exits when the work was done.
Given where the club currently is however, improving the ground is sadly not just bottom of the list of priorities, but also unachievable in any meaningful way. It will take a lot of money to change this.
Personally don't see the point in moving the dugouts. Our terrible home performance doesn't have anything to do with the ground. The reason we're not very good is because we keep signing shite players.
The reason we're not performing isn't because the ones that aren't good enough to get in the team are sat in a cramped bus shelter.

We've got an entire generation who havent seen a top ten finish in over a decade. My own son is 14 and in that whole time there has been 1...a 7th place finish which didn't even yield a play off place.
Cavjj's stats sadly back that up.. watching Southport regularly had been a thoroughly depressing experience for a long time.
Author: "The Town's Game: The Origins of Rugby and Association Football in Southport (1872-1889)", available to buy on Amazon from £4.99.
Editor: www.southportcentral.co.uk
Ronnie Hotdogs
BASTARD
BASTARD
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:34 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Ronnie Hotdogs »

Have said before that the openness of the ground and the distance of the stands from the pitch make the whole place feel sleepy. If ever the Pop Side and Scarisbrick End were redeveloped I'd hope we'd move the stands closer - might open up room for catering facilities etc too. All pie in the sky until someone wants to lob a few million at us sadly.
I am at my most DANGEROUS and EFFECTIVE when UNDERESTIMATED.
Liamisdoingagreatjob
----------
----------
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:55 pm

Re: A proposal

Post by Liamisdoingagreatjob »

cavjj wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:37 pm
Liamisdoingagreatjob wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:40 pm It would also allow another exit from the mainstand to be built rather than the tiny stairs everyone has to exit via...a healthy and safety issue waiting to happen surely..
The stand has been going for nearly 60 years so we've been waiting quite a while for that stairwell to be a significant safety issue.

Capacity of the stand on the larger side is 784. The stairwell in question is 1.5m wide according to the most recent planning documents. Green guide gives a stairwell flow rate of 73 spectators per minute per metre of width - meaning that stairwell can accomodate 109.5 spectators per minute. Green guide says stadium evacuation must be complete in 8 minutes. At 109.5 spectators per minute that takes a little of 7 minutes to evacuate that area if it were full.

A barrier in the middle of it might be helpful mind.
I agree technically yes it meets green guide rules (which i do understand) otherwise the stand wouldn't be open (or not certified to full capacity) but you only have to look at it to see its not good on matchdays.
With our demographic of lots of elderly fans it would certainly take longer than that to evacuate a full stand in reality.
The steepness and relative narrow depth of the stairs doesn't help and all we need is one trip or fall for there to be a problem. I think a great addition would be to allow a set of stairs to allow those in blocks 2 and 3 (nearer the centre) to egress more quickly after a game (they could be closed otherwise).

If a mid level disabled area or disabled access to the front row were incorporated it would also allow those fans a more elevated view and to be at the home end rather than away end of the ground.

Even slight widening of those stairs would be beneficial to ease what is a pinch point. That would allow a central rail too.

The stand improvements under phil are great but if we are looking to attract fans and make things easier to get in, out, to toilet or spend money on food at half time then it can't be a bad thing to do relatively cheaply. Let's be honest it would have been a better improvement than the fanzone has unfortunately proven to be.

I think people's expectations of comfort have moved on in the 60 years and its no longer enough to just comply with regulations. Obviously something that the club is not necessarily in a position to fund itself but a scheme developed could potentially attract wider funding.

Just my view.
Gambo's Left Boot
----------
----------
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 12:39 am

Re: A proposal

Post by Gambo's Left Boot »

My understanding was that we currently play on a narrow pitch because that was Liam's preference - compress play, get long throws into the box etc. It struck me on Saturday that we had more ball players than they did - Lloyd, Philliskirk, Morgan and Hmami can all pick a pass - and that compressing the play didn't benefit us at all. Rather than move stands, dugouts etc - next season how about widening the pitch by 6/7 yards so that the Pop Side is actually pitch side?
Post Reply