http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....y-fill-6674975
Manchester City cannot ignore the fact that their defeat to Chelsea was played out in front of some empty seats and must be careful over expansion plans as a result.
It might be hard to see the positives from City's 1-0 Premier League defeat to Chelsea, though there is one rather contrived upside.
Had the Blues extended a remarkable run at the Etihad Stadium by underlining their title credentials with a thumping win over Jose Mourinho's men then their detractors would have looked for other weaknesses to probe.
And on Monday evening there was one shortcoming off the pitch which was made patently obvious by the glare of the world's television cameras.
Namely that the stadium was not full.
To be clear, this is no attempt to dredge up the tired "Emptihad" routine, or an opportunity to question whether supporters have in fact turned up dressed as seats.
But this is the elephant in the room that City fans must confront without a nudge from their neighbours if Sheikh Mansour's plans to build the biggest club in the world are to bear fruit.
If the stadium is not full during a high-profile clash against the club's most credible title rivals then questions quite simply have to be asked.
There were swathes of empty seats visible on television, and it's not hard to believe that some out of the gaze of the viewer might also have been.
It makes talk of increasing the capacity to 60,000+ look like utter folly.
What message would a half-vacant stadium send to potential City fans around the world? And how can an atmosphere be fostered if there are gaps between the fans attempting to generate it?
City are one of the few clubs who are making steps to increase attendance through affordable ticket schemes such as offering three Champions League group games for a rather reasonable £99 this season.
Yet their work is not complete if the visit of Chelsea cannot attract a 47,805 capacity crowd.
And ensuring that fans turn out in numbers for games such as the FA Cup replay against Blackburn - where official attendance figures were given as a rather ambitious and convenient 35,000 - is another matter entirely.
Of course, the Blues' attendances have been impressive for much of this season, with a Premier League average of 47,107 putting them fourth in the league behind only Newcastle, Arsenal and United.
The clash with the Londoners brought the attendance figure up to 47,364, which indicates that things are certainly going in the right direction at the very least.
It is also worth noting that United do not always fill their sizeable stadium for low-key cup games (though they won't have to worry about that for the rest of the season).
However, expanding the Etihad must be done in line with bumper attendances so that the atmosphere is not killed in one fell swoop.
If that is done by making tickets available for younger fans then we all win - but following other clubs in using massaged figures will not fool anyone when the gaps are so easily spotted.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
