Jump to content

When will we find out capacity?


MaskedMarauder

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Treasurer said:

As I said previously the exits at ER are much more enclosed than Tynecastle making any sort of distancing impossible. 


yep. The away end is like a cattle truck in their concourse. An absolute hole that I’m surprised even passes H&S checks.  If their other 3 stands are anything like it then the decision is baffling.

Tynecastle has wide internal spaces so it doesn’t make sense to me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Pasquale for King

    13

  • Jambof3tornado

    9

  • IveSeenTheLight

    9

  • DETTY29

    7

Struggling to see the logic in that decision. Missed out on the cove game so fingers crossed for this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Boab Mugabe said:

Looking forward to supporters of the political party who run the council telling is 3000 for us but 4700 is fine for hibs.

Said the exact same thing & my comment was removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nookie Bear
36 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

Nothing surprises me anymore. Not since the voting farce demotion. Seems like a slap after slap to be honest. 
maybe the powers that be should go on a train and see what real crowding is. You could of landed a helicopter in the gaps at the cove game.


Half of them were probably rammed on trains going down to Wembley 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
29 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:


yep. The away end is like a cattle truck in their concourse. An absolute hole that I’m surprised even passes H&S checks.  If their other 3 stands are anything like it then the decision is baffling.

Tynecastle has wide internal spaces so it doesn’t make sense to me 

We also have stairs at the school end part of the new stand that have never been used, would’ve been if the rationale behind the decisions were revealed. We could perhaps put a bit of pressure in these mugs at the council. I will get in touch with the local councillor and see what she says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
1 hour ago, Boab Mugabe said:

Looking forward to supporters of the political party who run the council telling is 3000 for us but 4700 is fine for hibs.

Yip if you voted in our current Scottish government or City Council then dont bother moaning 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
21 minutes ago, SectionN said:

Said the exact same thing & my comment was removed. 

Place in run by their supporters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott
1 hour ago, Pasquale for King said:

I can’t get my head around it, sly digs at the SG in the statement doesn’t help. Time to play the game, something we are not very good at it seems. 

Agree the digs should be less sly the decision makes no sense. I guess those running our council and government are just shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madness. Makes absolutely no sense we get reduced capacities in the first place. 

 

As for the vermin being allowed more in is a sheer wtf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

We also have stairs at the school end part of the new stand that have never been used, would’ve been if the rationale behind the decisions were revealed. We could perhaps put a bit of pressure in these mugs at the council. I will get in touch with the local councillor and see what she says. 

Forgot about these stairs 👍 good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo

Having had people confirm that seats are still being allocated 3 seats apart even for family groups, I think it may well turn out that this is a cock-up by Hearts. We know that Edinburgh Council have been happy to accept a plan from Hibs that included fans sitting in household groups (the Arsenal game) and that they have now approved a significantly higher number for Hibs European game. If we haven't done it so far, we should ask Hibs for a look at their proposal, copy it and resubmit for the Celtic game. Is that means we have to arrive in allocated timeslots to get approval for a bigger crowd, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drumie jambo
2 hours ago, Boab Mugabe said:

Looking forward to supporters of the political party who run the council telling is 3000 for us but 4700 is fine for hibs.

So what team do the supporters of the political party (sorry parties as it's a coalition) who run the council support then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

queensferryjambo
15 minutes ago, drumie jambo said:

So what team do the supporters of the political party (sorry parties as it's a coalition) who run the council support then?

 

SNP = Hibs bias obviously ;) 

 

P.S. I am also obviously joking so no need for all the people into politics get their knickers in a twist.

 

BUT

 

For what it's worth Ian Blackford is a Hibs prick (and before the people into boring the tits off everyone with politics I know he is an MP not an MSP and makes no decisions for Edinburgh council).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

It would certainly be interesting to understand the rationale. 
 

 

 

I don't really know why anyone is surprised, because as with everything related to Covid the 'experts', who aren't experts because they have never dealt with anything like Covid before, have been making it up as they go along. Given the circumstances this is perhaps understandable, but I'm sure that we can all think of examples of conflicting decision making on what we can and cannot do, and we have been faced with a lack of logic, rationale and consistency from day one of the restrictions. If anyone out there is prepared to explain to me logically, rationally and consistently otherwise then I'd be happy to accept that I'm wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
26 minutes ago, henryheart said:

 

I don't really know why anyone is surprised, because as with everything related to Covid the 'experts', who aren't experts because they have never dealt with anything like Covid before, have been making it up as they go along. Given the circumstances this is perhaps understandable, but I'm sure that we can all think of examples of conflicting decision making on what we can and cannot do, and we have been faced with a lack of logic, rationale and consistency from day one of the restrictions. If anyone out there is prepared to explain to me logically, rationally and consistently otherwise then I'd be happy to accept that I'm wrong. 

 

Happy to explain it logically and consistently. The process involves event organisers putting forward their plans for how they will maintain physical distancing and reduce risk. The council then assesses the plan, can ask for additional measures to be taken, and approves a capacity based on the plans provided. The process isn't that the council comes up with the plan and tells the club what the limit is.

 

Hearts seem to have taken the odd decision to propose keeping every individual in the stadium 3 seats apart, regardless of whether they book together or not. Hibs (and it seems many other clubs around the country) have proposed allowing groups who book together to sit next to each other, but then with a gap to the next group. This approach of other clubs is entirely consistent with the overall government guidance on physical distancing. It is obvious that by allowing fans to sit next to each other in groups you will be able to have a greater capacity while maintaining physical distancing between groups. That would logically explain the council reaching a very different number for Hibs and Hearts. To me it is far more logical and realistic than the idea some posters are putting forward that the SNP like Hibs more than us.

 

It will be interesting if someone like the Evening News asks the council for comment what they say, but I'd expect them to be pretty robust in their defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Happy to explain it logically and consistently. The process involves event organisers putting forward their plans for how they will maintain physical distancing and reduce risk. The council then assesses the plan, can ask for additional measures to be taken, and approves a capacity based on the plans provided. The process isn't that the council comes up with the plan and tells the club what the limit is.

 

Hearts seem to have taken the odd decision to propose keeping every individual in the stadium 3 seats apart, regardless of whether they book together or not. Hibs (and it seems many other clubs around the country) have proposed allowing groups who book together to sit next to each other, but then with a gap to the next group. This approach of other clubs is entirely consistent with the overall government guidance on physical distancing. It is obvious that by allowing fans to sit next to each other in groups you will be able to have a greater capacity while maintaining physical distancing between groups. That would logically explain the council reaching a very different number for Hibs and Hearts. To me it is far more logical and realistic than the idea some posters are putting forward that the SNP like Hibs more than us.

 

It will be interesting if someone like the Evening News asks the council for comment what they say, but I'd expect them to be pretty robust in their defence.

I can only speak from experience at the Scotland-Czech Republic game but that was (supposed to be) four seats apart between people, whether from the same group or family. We had a row to ourselves, as did the family of four in front of us. Not that any social distancing was enforced in the ground. So I wouldn’t be too hasty in blaming Hearts when the SNP government approved international with 23% approved capacity operated in a similar manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

troonmaroon
25 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Happy to explain it logically and consistently. The process involves event organisers putting forward their plans for how they will maintain physical distancing and reduce risk. The council then assesses the plan, can ask for additional measures to be taken, and approves a capacity based on the plans provided. The process isn't that the council comes up with the plan and tells the club what the limit is.

 

Hearts seem to have taken the odd decision to propose keeping every individual in the stadium 3 seats apart, regardless of whether they book together or not. Hibs (and it seems many other clubs around the country) have proposed allowing groups who book together to sit next to each other, but then with a gap to the next group. This approach of other clubs is entirely consistent with the overall government guidance on physical distancing. It is obvious that by allowing fans to sit next to each other in groups you will be able to have a greater capacity while maintaining physical distancing between groups. That would logically explain the council reaching a very different number for Hibs and Hearts. To me it is far more logical and realistic than the idea some posters are putting forward that the SNP like Hibs more than us.

 

It will be interesting if someone like the Evening News asks the council for comment what they say, but I'd expect them to be pretty robust in their defence.

 

Yeap, I think we painted ourselves into a corner for the ict game. We should have done what others have done and allowed families/ households to apply as one and they sit together.

 

We poss knackered our chances for ict as we'd already got fans to ask for tickets without offering that. In fact we did the opposite by stating up front it would be single seats. 

 

Hopefully we learn and make a change to the proposals for the next games. 🤞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
15 minutes ago, troonmaroon said:

 

Yeap, I think we painted ourselves into a corner for the ict game. We should have done what others have done and allowed families/ households to apply as one and they sit together.

 

We poss knackered our chances for ict as we'd already got fans to ask for tickets without offering that. In fact we did the opposite by stating up front it would be single seats. 

 

Hopefully we learn and make a change to the proposals for the next games. 🤞

We applied as a family group of 4.....still sitting 3 seats apart.

 

Bloody crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
1 hour ago, Zico said:

I can only speak from experience at the Scotland-Czech Republic game but that was (supposed to be) four seats apart between people, whether from the same group or family. We had a row to ourselves, as did the family of four in front of us. Not that any social distancing was enforced in the ground. So I wouldn’t be too hasty in blaming Hearts when the SNP government approved international with 23% approved capacity operated in a similar manner. 

 

I don't really understand the point you are making? We absolutely know that Edinburgh Council (who are the body assessing plans and making decisions) are not requiring stadiums to operate in that way. We know that because Hibs aren't doing so. Are you suggesting that Edinburgh Council have decided to require an entirely different operating procedure from one stadium operator to another? That seems very unlikely to me. I get that lots of people dislike the council and government but the person I responded to was looking for a logical and consistent explanation. I feel that my explanation  is far more logical than Edinburgh Council are allowing groups to sit together in one stadium and not another or even more ridiculously 'SNP hate the Hearts' (which I know you haven't said but other posters seem to believe). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Happy to explain it logically and consistently. The process involves event organisers putting forward their plans for how they will maintain physical distancing and reduce risk. The council then assesses the plan, can ask for additional measures to be taken, and approves a capacity based on the plans provided. The process isn't that the council comes up with the plan and tells the club what the limit is.

 

Hearts seem to have taken the odd decision to propose keeping every individual in the stadium 3 seats apart, regardless of whether they book together or not. Hibs (and it seems many other clubs around the country) have proposed allowing groups who book together to sit next to each other, but then with a gap to the next group. This approach of other clubs is entirely consistent with the overall government guidance on physical distancing. It is obvious that by allowing fans to sit next to each other in groups you will be able to have a greater capacity while maintaining physical distancing between groups. That would logically explain the council reaching a very different number for Hibs and Hearts. To me it is far more logical and realistic than the idea some posters are putting forward that the SNP like Hibs more than us.

 

It will be interesting if someone like the Evening News asks the council for comment what they say, but I'd expect them to be pretty robust in their defence.

 

Thanks for this. Of course when assessing Hearts plan, could it not have been possible for the Council officers responsible to have explained to Hearts the errors of their ways and got the club to amend its submission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

I don't really understand the point you are making? We absolutely know that Edinburgh Council (who are the body assessing plans and making decisions) are not requiring stadiums to operate in that way. We know that because Hibs aren't doing so. Are you suggesting that Edinburgh Council have decided to require an entirely different operating procedure from one stadium operator to another? That seems very unlikely to me. I get that lots of people dislike the council and government but the person I responded to was looking for a logical and consistent explanation. I feel that my explanation  is far more logical than Edinburgh Council are allowing groups to sit together in one stadium and not another or even more ridiculously 'SNP hate the Hearts' (which I know you haven't said but other posters seem to believe). 

The point I’m making is you seem to be blaming the club without any evidence while making assumptions of competence from a council who haven’t shown much competence in the recent past. And no, I couldn’t care less about their political persuasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
3 hours ago, henryheart said:

 

Thanks for this. Of course when assessing Hearts plan, could it not have been possible for the Council officers responsible to have explained to Hearts the errors of their ways and got the club to amend its submission?

 

Maybe they could have done. But they will have a pile of applications from event organisers wanting answers. Imagine that Hearts had been told we were still waiting from a decision from the Council because they'd decided to spend their time working through Hibs submission in more detail in the hope of finding a way to add another 1,000 to their capacity. I think it is fair to say we'd be pretty unhappy. The indication from the Hearts statement is we do plan to continue to talk to the Council to try and get an increase on the current figure, but that the timelines mean it will be for the Celtic game not the ICT game.

 

1 hour ago, Zico said:

The point I’m making is you seem to be blaming the club without any evidence while making assumptions of competence from a council who haven’t shown much competence in the recent past. And no, I couldn’t care less about their political persuasion. 

But there is some evidence to go on, as I've outlined in the post above. I've added that to my knowledge from my job of how similar processes have worked during the pandemic. I've used that to answer a poster's question about how it would be possible for the Council to logically and consistently come up with a significantly different figure for Hearts and Hibs. I've also stated my opinion that it is a more credible explanation than the Council just deciding to impose totally different conditions on the two club's or that they are plucking numbers out of thin air.

 

In the same way that I'm interested when people involved in youth football share their knowledge of how that works and relate it to Hearts or those with contacts share little bits of info about potential transfers, I think some people might appreciate an insight into how this kind of process works. I get that other posters will prefer to just opt for 'club good, council bad' and I can live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Maybe they could have done. But they will have a pile of applications from event organisers wanting answers. Imagine that Hearts had been told we were still waiting from a decision from the Council because they'd decided to spend their time working through Hibs submission in more detail in the hope of finding a way to add another 1,000 to their capacity. I think it is fair to say we'd be pretty unhappy. The indication from the Hearts statement is we do plan to continue to talk to the Council to try and get an increase on the current figure, but that the timelines mean it will be for the Celtic game not the ICT game.

 

But there is some evidence to go on, as I've outlined in the post above. I've added that to my knowledge from my job of how similar processes have worked during the pandemic. I've used that to answer a poster's question about how it would be possible for the Council to logically and consistently come up with a significantly different figure for Hearts and Hibs. I've also stated my opinion that it is a more credible explanation than the Council just deciding to impose totally different conditions on the two club's or that they are plucking numbers out of thin air.

 

In the same way that I'm interested when people involved in youth football share their knowledge of how that works and relate it to Hearts or those with contacts share little bits of info about potential transfers, I think some people might appreciate an insight into how this kind of process works. I get that other posters will prefer to just opt for 'club good, council bad' and I can live with that.

Fair enough. I retain my scepticism of the council to do pretty much anything to any degree of competence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Maybe they could have done. But they will have a pile of applications from event organisers wanting answers. Imagine that Hearts had been told we were still waiting from a decision from the Council because they'd decided to spend their time working through Hibs submission in more detail in the hope of finding a way to add another 1,000 to their capacity. I think it is fair to say we'd be pretty unhappy. The indication from the Hearts statement is we do plan to continue to talk to the Council to try and get an increase on the current figure, but that the timelines mean it will be for the Celtic game not the ICT game.

 

But there is some evidence to go on, as I've outlined in the post above. I've added that to my knowledge from my job of how similar processes have worked during the pandemic. I've used that to answer a poster's question about how it would be possible for the Council to logically and consistently come up with a significantly different figure for Hearts and Hibs. I've also stated my opinion that it is a more credible explanation than the Council just deciding to impose totally different conditions on the two club's or that they are plucking numbers out of thin air.

 

In the same way that I'm interested when people involved in youth football share their knowledge of how that works and relate it to Hearts or those with contacts share little bits of info about potential transfers, I think some people might appreciate an insight into how this kind of process works. I get that other posters will prefer to just opt for 'club good, council bad' and I can live with that.

 

Thanks for this once more. I really cannot disagree with anything you write. I haven't dealt with any council service since the pandemic, but prior to then I always found the officers (in the main) to be proactive in helping applicants in the processing of planning applications, building warrants and environmental health issues assuming, of course, that what was being proposed was reasonable and just needed a nudge in the right direction. Some applications can be simple non starters. It could, of course, be that despite what Hearts say about their submission 'taking into account all guidelines and regulations', that possibly unlike Hibs, it didn't and that its proposal was hopeless and without a real understanding of what needed to be done to maximise the attendance.  We will never know, but what I would be inclined to do if I was so minded, is to put a bet on the capacity for the Celtic game being increased.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Celtic move from 9000 last night to 18,500 this weekend for a friendly against West Ham United

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council explained: “We really want to see events, including matches, back as close to normal as the regulations allow. It’s good for the economy and frankly it’s just good for people to be able to do the things they love doing.

“But in doing it safely, we’re stepping up how many people can be in stadiums match by match, starting at 50% of safe capacity, then 75%, then 100%. We think this gives the right balance and allows Glasgow’s clubs to start moving towards normality.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2021 at 19:23, IveSeenTheLight said:


Ive not followed the process yet, but I’ll let you know after Thursday

Anything to report ISTL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Italian Lambretta

Don't expect Edinburgh council to increase our capacity for the first game they are full of Ra sellick types who don't want a full Tynie baying blood at their beloved sellick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Treasurer
2 hours ago, 1953 said:

Anything to report ISTL?

Probably self isolating after being at shitodrie on Thursday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motherwell looking to have 6k fans for next weekends game against Hibs

surely we must be looking at a minimum of 8k for Celtic match

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2021 at 18:44, Jambo_Gaz said:

Madness. Makes absolutely no sense we get reduced capacities in the first place. 

 

As for the vermin being allowed more in is a sheer wtf. 

Hearts got 3000 in 4 stands and I see that the hobbits had 4700 in the 2 pitch side stands.stands behind the goals were completely empty.is it madness to think that this is a tad more sinister than hearts reading the rules incorrectly ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IveSeenTheLight
10 hours ago, 1953 said:

Anything to report ISTL?


It was easy enough to get in although only 5665 were allowed.

 

lateral flow test at home and logged with the NHS, e-Mail received.

ID checked outside the ground (e-mail confirmation of the test checked against photo ID and ticket). Wrist band provided to confirm ID checked

Then join the turnstyle queue, which went quickly.

 

No issues, fans were good, should allow more in, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David McCaig
10 hours ago, jbee647 said:

Motherwell looking to have 6k fans for next weekends game against Hibs

surely we must be looking at a minimum of 8k for Celtic match

If Motherwell are looking for 6k, our plan should be to get every ST holder in Tynecastle for the Celtic match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:


It was easy enough to get in although only 5665 were allowed.

 

lateral flow test at home and logged with the NHS, e-Mail received.

ID checked outside the ground (e-mail confirmation of the test checked against photo ID and ticket). Wrist band provided to confirm ID checked

Then join the turnstyle queue, which went quickly.

 

No issues, fans were good, should allow more in, in my opinion.

Cheers ISTL, glad it all worked for you. I'd be happy to do that before games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

If Motherwell are looking for 6k, our plan should be to get every ST holder in Tynecastle for the Celtic match.

I’m sure I read this morning it’s been confirmed as 4700 for the hobos next week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jbee647 said:

Motherwell looking to have 6k fans for next weekends game against Hibs

surely we must be looking at a minimum of 8k for Celtic match

That 6k is more than their normal attendance for that fixture!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:


It was easy enough to get in although only 5665 were allowed.

 

lateral flow test at home and logged with the NHS, e-Mail received.

ID checked outside the ground (e-mail confirmation of the test checked against photo ID and ticket). Wrist band provided to confirm ID checked

Then join the turnstyle queue, which went quickly.

 

No issues, fans were good, should allow more in, in my opinion.

Sounds absolutely ****ing horrendous and pointless. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IveSeenTheLight
1 hour ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Sounds absolutely ****ing horrendous and pointless. 

 

 


Well, if we didn’t offer / follow those guidelines, we would only have been allowed 2000, so there was definitely a worthy point to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Jambo
54 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:


Well, if we didn’t offer / follow those guidelines, we would only have been allowed 2000, so there was definitely a worthy point to it.

 

Some of the steps Aberdeen have implemented aren't in any guidance e.g. requiring proof of a negative test. Celtic had 18.5k at Celtic Park yesterday with testing merely being recommended and no checks in place. The process is that event organisers submit their proposals to the local authority for how they will organise their event in a way that reduces risk.

 

That said, Aberdeen are clearly being more succesful that Hearts in getting approval for larger numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:


Well, if we didn’t offer / follow those guidelines, we would only have been allowed 2000, so there was definitely a worthy point to it.

I know why Aberdeen did it but I don't agree with the reasons why they had to do it.  

 

You're told outdoors is safe yet when it comes to an open air stadium its now not safe despite most folk being vaccinated. When is it ever safe then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
15 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

I know why Aberdeen did it but I don't agree with the reasons why they had to do it.  

 

You're told outdoors is safe yet when it comes to an open air stadium its now not safe despite most folk being vaccinated. When is it ever safe then?

Outdoors apart from the concourse and bogs. I’m getting cathetered before my next stadium visit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iwasthere1954
On 20/07/2021 at 22:51, troonmaroon said:

 

Yeap, I think we painted ourselves into a corner for the ict game. We should have done what others have done and allowed families/ households to apply as one and they sit together.

 

We poss knackered our chances for ict as we'd already got fans to ask for tickets without offering that. In fact we did the opposite by stating up front it would be single seats. 

 

Hopefully we learn and make a change to the proposals for the next games. 🤞

You were allowed to enter the ballot as a group. My wife and myself applied and got two tickets for today. It was clearly stated you could apply foŕ up to four tickets per group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nookie Bear
2 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Outdoors apart from the concourse and bogs. I’m getting cathetered before my next stadium visit. 


That’s just taking the p***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iwasthere1954 said:

You were allowed to enter the ballot as a group. My wife and myself applied and got two tickets for today. It was clearly stated you could apply foŕ up to four tickets per group.

 

Not sitting together I think is his point, not directly next to each other anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

I know why Aberdeen did it but I don't agree with the reasons why they had to do it.  

 

You're told outdoors is safe yet when it comes to an open air stadium its now not safe despite most folk being vaccinated. When is it ever safe then?

 

Can't remember being told that outdoors was safe, safer than indoors but not completely safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

troonmaroon
3 hours ago, iwasthere1954 said:

You were allowed to enter the ballot as a group. My wife and myself applied and got two tickets for today. It was clearly stated you could apply foŕ up to four tickets per group.

That's not what I'm saying... You can apply as a group, yes. But we still aren't meant to sit together. Meant to keep the two empty seats between us, whether family etc or not. That's what Aberdeen and Hobos have done differently. 

 

Odd layout today. Looks like we had a pattern ready for the 5/6000 and have stuck with it with the 3000. Layer of around 8/10 empty rows at top all around the stadium. 

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.




×
×
  • Create New...