Before the flats were constructed the only hospitality we had was over the road at the Stoneleigh Hotel. They were a massive upgrade for us at the time and have been a money maker ever since.

I and a few hundred fans sat on those,seats,for almost 2 seasons when work started on demolition and rebuilding of East Stand, not a bad experience until it rains, sitting on wet seats and getting drenched is not fun, and I wouldn’t do it again,

In principle the temp seats were good, but they will only be overflow from main stand.
I can't see anyone choosing them first.

At a forum he mentioned terracing not seating be interesting to see how it pans out

I was going to say it would be better to have basic standing terracing instead of seating there.

Wasn’t their initial some plans to link it to the first floor of the flats?

You could add 500 or so standing and access into the bar area for refreshments.

That extra 500 or so would be full come the matches against Leeds, Cas and maybe the odd other.

Problem is that seating is far cheaper than seats, I know it sounds odd but it’s true and significantly so. You can do temp seating, not sure you can terracing, but might be wrong.

If it’s far cheaper then that’s fair enough. It would make sense.

Seating is cheaper than seats?

You've lost me.

I guess he means to make that flat piece of concrete in to terrace requires a lot of building up, so reasonably skilled labour and a lot of materials.
Temporary seating is bought as is and plonked on the floor with no alterations

Lost myself, I meant temp seating is cheaper than terracing.

Correct.

Also the flats themselves are temporary constructions with no real foundations. So building a permanent terrace right up to them may be problematic. Maybe I’m wrong and there is a way, but what I do know is that temp seating is cheap to buy and install and because it would be fairly shallow would have very few safety requirements. Terracing would need to be far stronger, need crush barriers etc.

Fair point. I did wonder if crush barriers may be an issue but some of the points you make about it being cheaper make sense.

Ultimately if we can increase capacity by a few hundred then this should get utilised for our big games vs likes of Leeds etc when I expect we will sell out.

Talking about seats actually. You may know but I had a brief look at the handbook recently and it mentioned that hospitality is to have a physical barrier to receive points…

Our hospitality seating has no physical barrier as such however it is separated by a walkway. I’m just wondering if this is classed as a physical barrier being a break in the seating?

I remember JM talking about that. It doesn't need to be major fixed wall. Just something to identify the difference. I'd guess we'd put hand rails down the side if needed

Thanks PT.

Leaving that one a bit late in the day. Would be a shame if we dropped points on a simple barrier like that. Maybe because we haven’t done it we perhaps don’t need to or maybe it’s something in the pipeline. I suppose you could put a few posts up and have a connecting chain running fl down the sides for a very cheap option. You could open and close it off when needed I guess.

I suppose the club would need to know what img define as a physical barrier. If it’s a physical gap, stewards enforcing then that’s easily done but if it is in fact something tangible then I would think Ellis would be all over that.

Just always wondered as would be a shame to lose points on something we actually have but for a technicality.

I agree.

I know they have opportunities to meet RFL to discuss so hopefully it's all under control.
Personally I'd allocate IMG strategy to someone as a role, not just Ellis looking. He's a busy guy and this needs someone in the detail.