Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

The return of spectators?


Recommended Posts

Sounds like they've got their act together pretty quickly over there.

Shows that where there's a will there's a way.

Of course the club have to implement sound policies and the fans have to comply with the rules / guidelines. But I don't see why we couldn't have something similar over here, up and running within the next couple of months...

...provided we don't have any further Covid outbreaks that need squashing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said:

If every other seat was empty and rows were staggered to create a diamond pattern of empty seats around each attendee, roughly how many people could we fit in the Riverside?

I did a similar estimation here earlier in this thread, not a diamond but something whereby a seat would have 8 empty seats around it (if it's in the middle of the block). This came to 9,856.

On 7/17/2020 at 4:09 PM, wilsoncgp said:

I did some 'back of a fag packet' maths based only on the capacity and the number of 'numbered' blocks (which isn't very accurate I know as not all blocks have same number or seats but I couldn't find the exact values from a quick google).

But say you divide the stadium by the blocks, that's 88. Round the answer up and each block estimates at around 400 seats. Let's say each block has 15 rows each. So each block row would have about 27 seats. If distancing is applied I think you're at least having every other row and every other seat in the populated rows emptied. So that's 8 rows of 14 seats populated per block, which comes to 112 out of 400.

Times that again by the number of blocks and you don't even reach 10k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said:

If every other seat was empty and rows were staggered to create a diamond pattern of empty seats around each attendee, roughly how many people could we fit in the Riverside?

Well I just did this quick sketch, based on a block of 100 seats...

Turns out that if you space the seating so there is at least 1 empty seat around each occupied one, you can get 25 people in every 100.

So basically ground capacity would be quartered. In the case of the Riverside, you're looking at 8,750. Although you also have to take into account the different stand sizes & seating layouts...so a bit of margin for error either side of that.

Socially Distanced Ground Seating.PNG

 

Not too shabby...8-9k people can still make a fair racket. Be miles better than that awful recorded sound.

 

Edited by AnglianRed
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RiseAgainst said:

If every other seat was empty and rows were staggered to create a diamond pattern of empty seats around each attendee, roughly how many people could we fit in the Riverside?

It's like a GCSE maths question 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnglianRed said:

Well I just did this quick sketch, based on a block of 100 seats...

Turns out that if you space the seating so there is at least 1 empty seat around each occupied one, you can get 25 people in every 100.

So basically ground capacity would be quartered. In the case of the Riverside, you're looking at 8,750. Although you also have to take into account the different stand sizes & seating layouts...so a bit of margin for error either side of that.

Socially Distanced Ground Seating.PNG

 

Not too shabby...8-9k people can still make a fair racket. Be miles better than that awful recorded sound.

 

You’re doing it wrong. You don’t need the empty rows. At least not according to the authorities here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus families of those in a bubble of 6 can sit together. I wonder if we have a high proportion of families - I remember we did years ago

If so that might help us have more people in perhaps?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, edinboro said:

Plus families of those in a bubble of 6 can sit together. I wonder if we have a high proportion of families - I remember we did years ago

If so that might help us have more people in perhaps?

 

That was actually scrapped in Denmark as it’s impossible for the stewards to tell if people live together. Just too hard to handle 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Borodane said:

You’re doing it wrong. You don’t need the empty rows. At least not according to the authorities here. 

But without the empty rows there is no distancing on the diagonal. People would be directly next to each other. I did that layout so that there is at least 1 empty seat all the way round an occupied one.

Like I said - its just how I would envisage socially-distanced seating. Depending on the stadium seating layout, you might be able to fit more (or less) in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, edinboro said:

Plus families of those in a bubble of 6 can sit together. I wonder if we have a high proportion of families - I remember we did years ago

If so that might help us have more people in perhaps?

 

You'd like to think so, but as BD said, I think there is too much of a risk of people trying to abuse the system and the stewards have enough on their plates without stopping & questioning any suspicious-looking groups.

You only have to look at all the idiots that packed the beaches and national parks to know plenty don't care about social distancing. Think there have to be hard and fast rules for this to work.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

But without the empty rows there is no distancing on the diagonal. People would be directly next to each other. I did that layout so that there is at least 1 empty seat all the way round an occupied one.

Like I said - its just how I would envisage socially-distanced seating. Depending on the stadium seating layout, you might be able to fit more (or less) in.

But you don't sit next to each other when you are diagonally behind or in front. That's still just as far away as an empy seat next to you or in front of you. Diagonally there is probably about 1 meter. I doubt your rows are closer together than they are here, and when you sit diagonally there is enough room without needing an empty row. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Borodane said:

But you don't sit next to each other when you are diagonally behind or in front. That's still just as far away as an empy seat next to you or in front of you. Diagonally there is probably about 1 meter. I doubt your rows are closer together than they are here, and when you sit diagonally there is enough room without needing an empty row. 

I'd say it's more like half a meter diagonally between seats. When I'm sat down, my knees can touch the shoulder of the person diagonally in front of me, and from my backside to my knee definitely ain't a meter. 

If you're leaning forward (in exasperation as another Boro attack breaks down in the 90th minute), you can be within about 30cm of the person diagonally in front of you's head.

If we're trying to be as safe as possible, I think you'd need the spare rows as Anglian had. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, boro-unger said:

I'd say it's more like half a meter diagonally between seats. When I'm sat down, my knees can touch the shoulder of the person diagonally in front of me, and from my backside to my knee definitely ain't a meter. 

If you're leaning forward (in exasperation as another Boro attack breaks down in the 90th minute), you can be within about 30cm of the person diagonally in front of you's head.

If we're trying to be as safe as possible, I think you'd need the spare rows as Anglian had. 

Yep, that's why I accounted for the empty rows too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...