What does the above highlighted part, mean/refer to?
Does it mean 'seating', as bums on, or seating in a technical building sense? (that I know nowt about)

Rather than scrimp on the North Stand I'd rather they use the money to do the full spec on the East Stand. This half a job isn't really benefiting anyone.

Agree with this, the half stand will look a right dogs dinner.

Rather have it full as it is now than half capacity with half a new yob.

You can't do that I'm afraid. The existing terrace has had had its capacity cut yet again by the Council as it's considered unsafe, that's what the wristbands are for - nothing to do with the East stand being shut as such.

One way or another it has to be upgraded on safety grounds.

I have no issue with the new system, in fact it's better imho, it's where it stops, leaving a huge void behind it - it will look awful and will obviously reduce the potential capacity. Only plus is that it should be fairly easy to extend it right to the back if money becomes available later.

I agree id rather just leave it as it is instead of the new plans.

You can't, it's been condemned or close to. All I'm not sure about is the time we have left before they will shut it completely, could be now.

Much as I don't like the new proposal that's a bit cutting your nose off.....

The idea of redevelopment of North Stand was to increase the capacity to 3500, it is currently reduced to 1500, due to council safety restrictions. There hasn’t been any indication of what the Stand capacity will be with the latest reduction of at least 50% of terrace improvements.

Precisely, you are bang on there mopsey, this so called improvement is not that in my eyes. We would gain more by leaving it as it is and use the money elsewhere. Wish the club would re consider this, because the original plan was fine but this latest amendment gains absolutely nothing.

It's not bang on PB. Because I was informed last night by a reasonable source that the North stand has had its capacity reduced again and further reductions are likely. It could even be shut in the worst scenario.

So you just cant leave it as it is and there is simply no way the West terrace could be configured to take more than 1,400, then you'd really have no capacity and virtually not cover.

Thought I'd sent you the proposed plans for the West terrace? Even that paired down version with a basic roof would now cost double, estimate about 1.5 million.

The fact is that ugly as it is the western terrace is structurally sound, the North isn't.

Yes. Even without knowing anything about architecture or building, you can tell there are lots of parts of the North Stand no longer fit for purpose and edging on not safe.
Needs whatever changes we can afford.

why not leave the pitch for now and use that money?

Because the pitch will generate money.

It’s a catch 22 situation for y to he club…?a fixed budget… spiralling inflation… crowd safety issues…

But not doing the North Stand properly IS a big mistake…

So what's the actual position on the North Stand?
Is it getting reduced due to funding issues?
Does anyone know what the original planned capacity was vs the changed capacity?

Or are we all just speculating between ourselves. The club could put this to bed with a little update couldn't they?

Also worth noting that on the Casforum someone by the name of SWAG has suggested the stadium has come in under cost in places and we might have extra cash. This adds a further layer of confusion doesn't it?

They also claim the pitch will generate money to answer a previous poster who asked why we don't scrap that.