West Stand Survey Results
By DOK
April 11 2004
As you should all know by now (or else the results of the first question are very misleading) there is a plan to build a new West Stand. The Club have asked for feedback - and CAW has been happy to rise to the challenge.
Fans were invited to attend an exhibition of the plans, and it was possible to give the representatives of the project management team feedback at the meeting or to write any comments/issues on comment forms.
The drawback of this approach is no fan knows what another fan has commented on, there is no sense of what a group of fans think and there is no sparking of ideas off each other. For that reason this survey was born. It was intended to be a serious survey with a touch of humour to keep you all interested. As we'll discover, sometimes the humorous remarks scored higher than the serious ones - tee hee!
This interpretation of the survey is mine alone, the good and the bad. I set it up, I get to comment on the results. If you disagree or have a different interpretation then by all means get on the message boards and have your say. I should say, in case its not clear, I'm very excited by the new West Stand - its going to be a great asset to the club and its something we absolutely must have if we're to grow.
Finally, I'd like to thank all 76, yes 76, fans who filled in the survey. Let's hope this feedback and feedback on the message boards helps the club.
Do you think the Club is keeping you sufficiently informed about the proposed plans?
| Overwhelmed with information | 1 | 1.32% |
| Very well informed | 42 | 55.26% |
| Reasonably well informed | 33 | 43.42% |
| Poorly informed | 0 | 0.00% |
| What plans ??? | 0 | 0.00% |
Well, I think the club can pat itself on the back here. No negative marks at all. The person who claimed to be overwhelmed with information had clearly included all CAW's efforts with those of the club. I was impressed with the club's efforts to communicate its design decisions to the fans and to local residents.
Do you feel confident that sensible suggestions from fans will be considered?
| O yes, Mark Evans always does what I tell him | 0 | 0.00% |
| Yes, within reason | 33 | 43.42% |
| Not sure | 21 | 27.63% |
| Cosmetic changes only | 17 | 22.37% |
| Not a hope, all set in concrete before a brick has been laid | 5 | 6.58% |
Well, about one in two people are sure that a sensible suggestion from fans will be considered. I suppose maybe I should have defined terms like "sensible" and "considered" more clearly. However, a goodly number are happy to trust the club to do the right thing, so that's good news. This survey raises a number of issues and I'm sure the club will give them due consideration.
One in four people who voted are not sure that the club will consider sensible suggestions, while one in three is sure they won't. If you take the don't knows out the equation, then 33 (60%) think the club will consider sensible suggestions and 22 (40%) don't.
Talking to the reps at the exhibition they were very clear that no major changes could be contemplated, so much so that I'm one of the five people who voted for option 5. I took one of their comment forms when they pressed it on me, but never intended to fill it in. I've since moderated my opinion and if I had to fill it in again I'd be an option 4 person.
In the new West Stand, do you think there should be reserved enclosures?
| Family enclosures | 6 | 7.89% |
| Bull pen for the noisy types | 3 | 3.95% |
| Both | 6 | 7.89% |
| No special areas | 60 | 78.95% |
| Families won't be able to afford these seats | 1 | 1.32% |
Well, four out of five people want no reserved enclosures. What more can I say, the people have spoken.
People will be able to circulate past the front of the West Stand
| What's wrong with that | 14 | 18.42% |
| People sitting down shouldn't be obstructed | 57 | 75.00% |
| You're too cheap to buy a decent seat, you deserve what you get! | 5 | 6.58% |
Well, out of every four people three think that people sitting down shouldn't have their view obscured and one thinks that's all right. Shame I didn't come up with a sensible suggestion for this, we could see how the club consider it! However, 75% is pretty clear let's see if the club takes note.
At the exhibition the reps were keen to point out that you can still walk round the back of the new West Stand. That would be like leaving the East Stand round the back, walking all the way behind it and rejoining from the back instead of just walking along the front. Likely to happen? No
They also pointed out that the pedestrian space in front of the West stand is half the width of the East Stand and said this would lead to less people milling around. When I asked if it would lead to more congestion and this would stop/slow people walking, they conceded this might also be the case. (try getting round the South end of the East Stand just before kick off).
There is nowhere in the West stand to stand and watch the game
| I can't believe it. Standing areas need to be provided | 8 | 10.53% |
| The Club ought to consider this | 27 | 35.53% |
| So what? | 18 | 23.68% |
| An all seat West Stand is what we want | 20 | 26.32% |
| We'll get those multi coloured trousered oiks come in here shouting, blowing horns, cheering both teams... It's not on just not on, old chap! | 3 | 3.95% |
Well, the advent of the new West Stand explains why the club never took up my suggestions for putting back the temporary terracing for this season. They didn't want to encourage people to stand.
Actually I'm stunned by the size of these results! If you think at any one sold out game there's what, about 400 people standing? as a percentage of folk there (assume 7,000) that's about 5%. Not all those standing want to stand, its just odd sods like me who do. I've stood and watched Harlequins since before the East Stand was built. At the exhibition I bumped into another kindred spirit who was been standing watching them since way before I did. We're odd, but passionate with it!
Anyway, what do these results show? A whopping 10% think provision should be made for fans to stand, and a huge 35% think the club ought to consider (as in reconsider) this. Add these together and you're just short of one person in two thinks the club ought to provide standing areas or at least reconsider it.
More people want seats or don't care about the issue, but that was always going to be the case. Most normal people want a nice comfortable seat to watch the game from, and good on them, the club is catering for them.
What I was hoping was the club might look at the new stand at Northampton and see how standing and sitting could be mixed. Having the standing folk at the front of a stand gets round the issue of people walking in front of the stand. However, it was made very clear at the exhibition that changes on this scale would not be considered because then it wouldn't look like the East stand.
You can no longer watch the match from the West Stand bar
| Correct, the needs of the hospitality & media types come first | 4 | 5.26% |
| You don't need to watch the game from the bar | 32 | 42.11% |
| Shame! | 16 | 21.05% |
| This is the price of progress | 20 | 26.32% |
| This is terrible, the whole stand should be redesigned around this idea | 4 | 5.26% |
I didn't phrase the questions well enough to get a real sense of the opposition to this. This came across much clearer on the message boards. However, if we look at responses 1 & 2, then one person in two thinks you don't need to watch the game from the bar. A further one in four sees this as the price of progress and only one in five really object to the loss.
I think its losing one of the "differentiators", one of the things that makes the Stoop special. (Also one of the things that might have tempted me to become a member again). On a cold wet miserable day when standing seemed less appealing than I sometimes make out, it was great being able to go to the West Stand bar and watch the game from the warm and dry.
The Mighty Quins Village should be inside the West Stand to be near parents/out the rain/warm
| Absolutely, let the office staff live in a tent | 6 | 7.89% |
| Perhaps office staff could find somewhere else | 26 | 34.21% |
| Doesn't worry me! | 25 | 32.89% |
| No, stick it behind the South Stand | 15 | 19.74% |
| How are parents of kids under 10 going to be able to afford the West Stand anyway | 4 | 5.26% |
At the exhibition, when kwin mentioned the MQV to the reps, their response was "What's the Mighty Quins Village?", which showed the consideration given to this in the plans. As the third response shows, if you have no kids that use it, then this is a fully understandable position. If you have kids that use it, where it is, how long it takes you to get there, etc... is very important.
40% of people think the club should consider using the space currently assigned for offices to the MQV, a third of people couldn't care less, and 20% think it shouldn't be part of the West Stand.
This seems slightly confusing to me. On the one hand we're trying to be an all seater, family friendly stadium. On the other we're relegating some of the stuff that makes us so family friendly to the equivalent of a tent in a car park. The MQV is another differentiator. If the MQV is behind the South Stand, then how many families will be anywhere but in the South Stand?
Players should continue to eat in the East Stand
| Yes, this is part of what makes Quins players so approachable | 44 | 57.89% |
| Only if they improve their table manners | 3 | 3.95% |
| Ask them, I don't care | 24 | 31.58% |
| Give them some privacy | 5 | 6.58% |
| No, its disgusting. Its like watching a chimpanzee's tea party | 0 | 0.00% |
Well, a fairly clear majority in continuing the current custom and a further one in three thinking it would be nice to check the players were cool with the idea. Business as usual.
The selling of the training pitch should be
| The only solution we need | 0 | 0.00% |
| What we should do if there's no other choice | 38 | 50% |
| Fine. If Mark Evans is happy, I'm happy | 10 | 13.16% |
| Carried out in conjunction with other funding methods | 25 | 32.89% |
| Unnecessary if we ground share with London Irish | 3 | 3.95% |
Well, the first thing we see is no-one sees this as an ideal solution. Most people are happy to go along with it but one in three thinks it should only be done with other funding methods (and presumably only when they don't raise enough on their own). Personally I can't see how other funding methods will raise £4 mill unless we get that from Duncan Saville and I'm pretty sure that ain't gonna happen.
Would you contribute, say, £500 to a Supporters Trust to help finance the stand
| Yes | 15 | 19.74% |
| Maybe £250 | 13 | 17.11% |
| Depends on what I got for it | 26 | 34.21% |
| My partner won't allow it | 6 | 7.89% |
| No | 16 | 21.05% |
An interesting one this, and much more positive than I'd expected. One in 5 say they would, 1 in 6 would consider £250, one in 3 would consider £500 if the benefits made it worth it. About one in three wouldn't contribute. If you regard 3,000 as being hard core STH/Debentures then on this basis you could get about 600 prepared to put in £500 each and 500 prepared to go £250. Well, you can do the sums yourselves. At least enough for someone to consider an approach like this maybe?
Would you pay £5 more per game for your ticket to help finance the development
| I'd rather pay an extra £10 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Yes, sounds a good idea | 15 | 19.74% |
| I'll think about it | 29 | 38.16% |
| You'll need to persuade me | 28 | 36.84% |
| No, I need the money for beer/pimms/chardonnay | 4 | 5.26% |
Well, another £5 a game on an 8K crowd, 15 games a season makes £600,000 per season. I know its not as simple as that (at all) but 1 in 5 would go for it while 2 in 5 is thinking about it. The other 2 in 5 needs a bit more persuasion.
The proposed space for disabled users is
| Palatial | 2 | 2.63% |
| Over generous | 3 | 3.95% |
| Adequate | 40 | 52.63% |
| In need of a rethink | 13 | 17.11% |
| At the wrong height (ground level in front of the peds) | 18 | 23.68% |
There is provision in the plans for 39 disabled spaces. I don't think we get 39 disabled fans in the whole of the ground at the moment, do we? Possibly this is where the votes for the first three answers come from. Certainly the space is adequate, its the sight lines for those currently planned to be at ground level that is at issue. 40% of people think some sort of rethink needs to be done. I think the disabled fans have a good case for complaining that what they're being provided with is less than they currently have. While this is the same argument as I'd like to use for the West Stand bar, I think that disabled fans have a power that I lack in terms of being noticed by planning committees. If the disabled fans kick up a stink to Richmond Council, local MP, Richmond and Twickers times etc..., well I'm sure the club doesn't want that negative publicity so will be a bit more accommodating to their objections than mine!
Do you think local residents have a legitimate cause for concern about the development
| Yes, how much rugby can they be asked to tolerate | 1 | 1.32% |
| Yes, given the other plans all around | 18 | 23.68% |
| The traffic is the only genuine worry | 25 | 32.89% |
| They're all Nimby's | 3 | 3.95% |
| How did they miss seeing the Stoop when buying the house? | 29 | 38.16% |
This was the one where the facetious remark came first. I think this won't require residents to tolerate any more rugby than they currently do, so a 1% figure for that seems fair. The "other plans all around" concern turning all the green space around the houses and in the council depot and possibly the college into housing. While 24% think they have a cause for concern, whether this development goes ahead will not affect the other development plans. All traffic for the new flats will all be routed from the A316, so unless any of the new residents join the gym, they won't add to local traffic. Of course, on match days the A316 is going to be nightmare immediately after the game, and this development is going to worsen the situation. Its pleasing to see that most fans recognise the residents to have genuine concerns rather than the three who wrote them off as nimbys. However, it is true they always knew the Stoop was there and would try one day to expand.
Conclusion
I think this has been a successful way for 76 fans to register their reactions to the plans. Exactly what the club does with those reactions is of course up to them. The impression I have from the exhibition evening is there will be little or no movement on any issue apart from the disabled fans, and that only for the reasons I've mentioned, and the MQV which now they're thinking about it will obviously have to be part of the new West Stand.
However, let's not be negative about this. This is going to be a great development for the club. Its going to allow us to expand as we must. It will provide a stand to at least rival the East stand. A few people will suffer in this, but not too badly I would hope. The majority will find their time at the Stoop enhanced by this new stand.