Genuinely fascinated by Saturday appearing to be the tipping point for many. I had no intention of going once it became apparent that it was going to be packed out but felt it was right to be there to honour DC.
Taking everything into consideration that's been said here, i'm sticking with my feeling that the capacity has to be reduced, and substantially. I'm not sure how some kind of purity test can be applied to ensure that only people who want to watch the game can come in, or even if that's at all desirable anyway. The beer garden crowd (which has grown exponentially) would still be there to a degree but there would be more space to avoid them and not hear every inane word of the jibber jabber. That would be just a pleasant unplanned consequence though, the issue is that the infrastructure just isn't remotely there to have 3,300+ in the ground.
I get it all about how our playing budget isn't as big as many assume it to be, based on gates. We have low season ticket prices, generous (some would say overly-generous) concession prices, extensive running costs due to the standard of a fast-decaying ground and, more happily, more people being paid a wage to do a job of work at the club.
BUT I would suggest that the playing budget should literally be based on whatever is left after all bills and staff have been paid and whatever needs to be squirrelled away for a rainy day has been put under the mattress. If lowering the capacity then means an Isthmian South playing budget then so be it - it's about running a football club well and if the management don't like that then they can find themselves somewhere else to ply their trade. If the financial boost which Saturday and any subsequent over-attended games leads to a load of new players then i'm done with home games. If the manager moans about that in the SLP, as his chosen mode of communication with the mugs who pay his wages, then use that money to pay him off and get shot.
While the idea that the shareholders are making money off the current situation is obviously nonsense and Ben is, contrary to one misinformed contributor on here, not actually the anti-christ, there does seem to be a bit of a shortfall in accountability on how the club is being run. Isn't this where the Supporters' Trust comes in? From an outsiders perspective, the primary role of the Trust still seems to be one of free labour to be used by the club on match days and beyond. Fair play to anyone who signs up for that, I never have, but does it operate as a representative body of the supporter base. Does it lobby, especially now it has places on the club board, to improve the 'match day experience'? Genuine question, not a criticism. A few people having a go at Ben after the game isn't the same thing, especially once drink has been taken and emotions are a little charged.
The beer garden crowd probably weren't happy on Saturday either, but due to bar and toilet queues rather than anything else. So let's say 1,000 of them decide against returning in future, there'll probably be another 1,000 to take their place and have that same experience, then there'll probably another 1,000 to take their place.... and on we go. But, it may feel like it but there isn't actually an inexhaustible supply of people who (very, very) weirdly choose to pay £12 to get in to an overly full beer garden, then queue for 20 minutes to either get a pint or have a piss. What happens then? Crowds will start falling but will the hardcore support who have either already walked away or are currently considering doing so return? I think it's unlikely. I'm sure they already do but I really, really hope the club see the extraordinary growth in crowds as likely being an aberration in the long run. Maybe it isn't but non-league is littered with clubs who temporarily had big gates and struggled to adapt once they went away.