pyeman wrote:
Didnt they already say that it would have one standing side?
Plus if moneys tight its cheaper to build a standing area than a seated one.
Plus if moneys tight its cheaper to build a standing area than a seated one.
And you can get more people in too provided adequate crowd control barriers are in place.
I'm just thinking about other uses, a key one potentially being concerts. presumably in this situation the stage would need to be facing the largest seating area which would presumably be the main stand down one side. In that case, would it not be acceptable to have the opposite touchline as standing, with that side used for the stage and everything else; and the remaining three sides all be seating?