|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 5, 2011 11:40:53 GMT
We are doing work on costing and architectural issues, and this is of course will be different for each ground ( in some grounds e.g Elland Road we have seated areas which are formed by putting seats in former standing areas). But the first thing is to persuade politicians and people in the football industry that the regulations laid before Parliament prohibiting this in the top 2 divisions should be removed.
The only completely safe football ground is an empty one, just as the only completely safe motor car is one which never leaves the garage. As in other areas of life, it is about risk assessment and balancing reasonable safety regulations against the downsides of reduced freedoms and choice, and consequent customer care problems. Safety standards for football grounds, including both standing and seated areas, are laid down in the Green Guide issued by the Football Licensing Authority and we not proposing any alteration to that.
At the moment that is overlaid by the Parliamentary regulations, which lay down an extra ( all-seated) specification for the top 2 Divisions. The only logic of this could be either that the safety of a ground is a function of the quality of football played on the pitch, which is an absurdity, or that the safety of spectators in the top two divisions is more important than that of spectators in the lower divisions, which again is clearly not the case. In safety terms, the current law is completely unnecessary, and that is what we are trying to remove.
Scunthorpe illustrate this well. They have a standing area. After promotion to the Championship clubs are allowed 3 years to convert to all-seated. They have just completed their third year in the Championship. Had they stayed up they would have had to convert their standing area to seated ( which would have reduced the capacity of the smallest ground in that league from 9k to 7.8k, denying even more fans access to popular games).
So, if in the games at the end of the season their team had done well enough to pull them out of trouble, their ground would have become "unsafe" next season, but if the team performed badly and they were relegated ( which they were) , the ground is still "safe". Absurd.
Of course, the large investments made in english grounds in the recent years have improved the quality of the grounds, and with it, their safety. But in our view that is not due to seating areas per se, but to the investment and the provision of new facilities. As has been shown in other parts of the world, there is no reason why such improved quality cannot include safe standing areas, and indeed this would help to tackle some of the customer care problems caused by standing in seated areas.
I do not therefore agree with MW's statement that the benefit seated areas have brought in terms of crowd control and safety is absolutely enormous, and I don't think the evidence is there to support that conclusion.
It does not help the debate to misrepresent arguments. As is quite clear from the posts, my reference to Ellis Park was not to scare people about all-seated stadia, which would be a bizarre thing to try to do, but was simply a response to the posed leading question about how many people had been crushed to death in all-seated stadia by pointing out that all the major disasters in recent years have been in all-seater stadia. Safety is achieved by proper design and crowd management, not standing or seated per se.
Characteture it as a "beauty parade" or a "circus" all you like, but the fact is that at Wolves it produced a mature, intelligent debate involving both the fans representatives and the most senior club management on an issue which was recognised as important by all of them. And it is unwise and will be perceived as arrogant, MW, to make assumptions about what the Wolves fans at a meeting at which you were not present did or did not understand.
There is no conflict or incompatibility with campaigning on this issue and also campaigning on other issues of importance to fans - and we do. Decisions on campaigns and priorities are decided by our members at the Fans Parliament and the people they elect to our National Council in between Parliaments.
Scouse - this is not a scale model or mock up - it is a section made exactly to Green Guide specifications. The fans standing in those pictures were impressed with what they saw even though the majority of them would still choose to sit themselves if given a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 12:11:46 GMT
Malcolm
By 'mock up' and scale I meant a 'terrace' of 3 x 2 as oppossed to the sense of scale a 75 yards x 30 yard produces....
IE If I was a decission maker and presented with those photgraphs I'd imediately beg the question...if a lady has to stand in the aisle to see , would fans at a game do likewise , if a fan can't see and if a fan takes up the room of 3 what if any would be the impact when multiplied over a 75 yard terrace?
I'm not anti standing far from it..not least for many of the reasons in your above post...but imagary is important and believe any released photographs of 'the' or one of the proposed solution should be vetted to show it in the right light was my only point ..why do opponents work for them
Perhaps you don't agree , but I don't think the pictures do the 'promotion' many favours.
A further question / point , is there any danger that the solution shown if brought in might open the door to lower league clubs having to adopt this scheme for their terraces..how is it proposed that they're safeguarded from that
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 5, 2011 12:54:51 GMT
Thanks for that, Scouse. I will pass those comments to Jon Darch, my colleague who is responsible for the roadshow and its website.
In your final paragraph you have identified a very relevant question which we have debated considerably. The 'danger' you have referred to is one which has been raised with us by some lower league Chairmen who support us.
The answer is that we are not proposing that this system should be the only one which is allowed in the top 2 divisions. We are proposing that the current legal prohibition on standing in the top 2 divisions should be removed and the Green guide applied.
Thats said, the great advantages of the Rail seats for 'top' clubs are that (a) they could be used in UEFA competitions ( as they are in Germany) which traditional terraces couldn't. For so long as the current UEFA regulations apply, any club which thinks there is any possibility it might play in Europe at any time during the life of its stand ( which will be most if not all of them), is not going to opt for a traditional terrace, even if the law is changed (b) they have a track record of working in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 5, 2011 17:51:01 GMT
MC can always be relied upon to provide the answer of a consummate and skilled politician even in the inappropriate context of a message board where the original discussion was rather light hearted. There is a focus on risk assessment in MC’s reply. I don’t think anyone doubts that standing areas of a high degree of safety can be developed but unfortunately no attempt to discuss the concepts of practicality and cost have been included. A. The majority of clubs at the higher ends of the league ladder would have to carry out major stadium reconstruction to accommodate standing areas. This has already been confirmed by Stoke City. B. I suggest that it will be difficult to find anyone who doubts the cost of this reconstruction will be passed on directly to the paying supporters. It always is and equally easy to predict is that it will negate any potential cost savings expected from no seating areas. It is hardly an exercise in cynicism to suspect that even when the capital cost has been recovered, prices will not be dropped. They never are. I scratch my head in wonder at the sight of a member of an organisation that represents football supporters using the example of a club (Scunthorpe) that has wriggled out of its obligations to provide safety and comfort to the people who attend their games to the last possible moment as some sort of potential martyr! A. The only function they are manipulating is one of gaining an unfair competitive advantage whilst compromising the safety and comfort of their own supporters. Many similar clubs (Crewe for example) have not been so negligent and have invested in the safety of all seating arrangements whilst the Scunthorpe’s’ of this world continued to play in shit hole grounds and have put their money into players and their salaries to get promoted. Promotion should be denied such clubs going forward. B. I agree that the cut off point for determining where the ground improvement legislation should be applied is flawed however; there is no easy answer when deciding where the line is drawn to prevent the reduction of safety issues or wiping out clubs financially where there is a minimal threat of safety being compromised. The system chosen is based on simple physics. You are less likely to be crushed in a ground either sparsely populated or a small number of rows deep than you are in the major stadiums where terracing were huge and densely packed. It’s got bugger all to do with the daft nonsense MC talks about as being applied as criteria. Equally baffling is the refusal to accept that all seater stadiums have made a significant difference in the area of crowd safety and crowd control. It is not the only reason of course but if there isn’t enough empirical evidence out there in terms of violence and stadium disaster reduction in this country for MC and whoever “we” is then “we” have a problem! A. I wonder how many of the Juventus fans crushed against a wall in Belgium by Liverpool supporters organising and swarming across terraces would be alive today if the Heysel Stadium had been all seater? Perhaps “we” think, as suggested that it is down to other improvements and wouldn’t have happened if the concourse tea bars and toilets had been nice! I think it would have been less likely if the culprits had been faced with rows of seats to negotiate and organise around. Judge for yourselves! B. There is latent football hooliganism in this country whether MC is aware of it or not. There is no doubt in my mind that standing areas have the potential to re-ignite problems inside the stadiums (see above) and seating helps to reduce the potential by the sheer nature of the physical constraints it provides. I question if MC is completely street wise in this respect (that’s a compliment btw). C. In terms of the customer care issue of people standing in seating areas the answer is clear and simple and indeed one I would expect the organisation MC is representing would be focusing on instead of this currently unworkable fascination with a return to standing areas. Enforce ground regulation by ejections bans and fines. Simples. Of course throwing in red herrings like the Ellis Park incident to support your argument is always going to raise suspicions as the motivation for doing such a thing. I imagine MC is well versed in the unique circumstances surrounding events there and you could reasonably expect him to therefore avoid bringing it up in the first place. I haven’t much sympathy when he then starts crying foul and claiming misrepresentation when he tries to manipulate corruption and wickedness to make his point. By reference of course none of this will qualify as a match to the mature and intelligent debate held with Wolves fans. I could be forgiven for interpreting this remark as MC pompously dismissing argument contra to his own and commending one where agreement with MC resulted. It’s simply meant as a put down of me of course. Understandable maybe as I have treated the initial exchanges with John in a light hearted manner but equally it is but a message board. Ultimately good luck to anyone who thinks that a meeting with a tiny proportion of Wolves fans drawn exclusively from the very fans organisation trying to promote the return of standing areas (MC neglected to mention that) is some sort of mandate for the crusade. Good luck to anyone who thinks that an organisation made up of cause hungry football fan activists however democratic they perceive themselves to be is the most reliable force for prioritising supporter’s issues. Wonderful work is done by the organisation on specific issues such as the disgraceful treatment of supporters making their way to Man United but when it comes to dealing with and prioritising general concerns and problems the old crusading nature gets in the way of common sense unfortunately. There is a track record that supports that view. MC calls it pompous to comment on a meeting I didn’t attend. I’d suggest that a meeting that includes only the like minded and where the questions (as published on an earlier link) were so narrow is only going to come to one conclusion. I didn’t attend too many of the meetings of the USSR Parliament where the recommendations of the polit bureau were applauded through but I had a good idea why they were approved! I may not be the duly elected member of the Fans Parliament, I may not have been elected democratically to sit on a National Council but I’m not daft enough to not have inkling as to what would be said if it was proposed to the twenty odd thousand Stokies who sit at our home games that all other spending plans including player purchases so they could choose to sit or stand at the Brit. I wonder what the QPR fans would be more concerned about; paying a staggering 40% ticket price increase or worrying about being provided with a seat at games? I might take a guess but that would be arrogant wouldn’t it? Anyway, that’s enough on this. Perhaps we can consider this when other pressing problems that you say you are dealing with have some sort of resolution. In the meantime, the fact that there are only basically four people discussing it on a message board where hundreds of football supporters a day are contributing should tell us something Malcolm?
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Jun 5, 2011 18:15:08 GMT
Anyway, that’s enough on this. Perhaps we can consider this when other pressing problems that you say you are dealing with have some sort of resolution. In the meantime, the fact that there are only basically four people discussing it on a message board where hundreds of football supporters a day are contributing should tell us something Malcolm? Wrong, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread but that doesnt mean im not taking interest. I want to stand at football matches and support what the FSF are trying to achieve
|
|
|
Post by stokecfan on Jun 5, 2011 18:22:29 GMT
Anyway, that’s enough on this. Perhaps we can consider this when other pressing problems that you say you are dealing with have some sort of resolution. In the meantime, the fact that there are only basically four people discussing it on a message board where hundreds of football supporters a day are contributing should tell us something Malcolm? Wrong, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread but that doesnt mean im not taking interest. I want to stand at football matches and support what the FSF are trying to achieve Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Jun 5, 2011 18:34:40 GMT
For me it's an argument that's dead in the water. If you were to change an area of the stadium then you would need an area where 100% of the fanbase were fully in support of such a change. That's an impossible task for a lot of the high end clubs, there simply isn't a suitable area. Perhaps the only change could be in the law/guidelines, again due to the cost and the non-viable nature of the existing stadiums there would be few takers in the current financial climate. We can't go back to standing areas.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 5, 2011 18:48:13 GMT
I think it's fairly clear that Mark and I are not going to agree on this, so there probably isn't a great deal of point in another lengthy response from me. I also know that he has little time for the FSF or me personally, and we'll have to live without his support, but I will just correct one point. The Wolves Fans Parliament is not drawn exclusively from the FSF. It has nothing to do with the FSF. It is the fans representative consultative body set up by the Wolves Club with a defined membership.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jun 5, 2011 19:00:44 GMT
Wrong, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread but that doesnt mean im not taking interest. I want to stand at football matches and support what the FSF are trying to achieve Ditto. And again.
|
|
|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Jun 5, 2011 19:06:06 GMT
Anyway, that’s enough on this. Perhaps we can consider this when other pressing problems that you say you are dealing with have some sort of resolution. In the meantime, the fact that there are only basically four people discussing it on a message board where hundreds of football supporters a day are contributing should tell us something Malcolm? Wrong, I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread but that doesnt mean im not taking interest. I want to stand at football matches and support what the FSF are trying to achieve Couldn't agree more Evs
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 19:31:57 GMT
Malcolm..thanks for your response
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jun 5, 2011 19:39:14 GMT
The only thing I will reiterate is that no matter how low the demand on a club by club basis, a silly bit of legislation shouldn't be upheld to prevent it. Even if just one club wants to add a safe terrace, then they should be able to, and not be blocked because Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal have nowhere to put a terrace in their grounds. That's just a stupid argument.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 5, 2011 20:08:53 GMT
Scouse - I notified Jon who has just tried to post on here but apparently the Board is not accepting new registrations at the moment. Jon is our expert on this. On the costing issue he tells me that a new build stand of 4000 rail seats would cost about £350,000 more than one with conventional seats, but because of the increased capacity when used in standing mode, this could be rapidly recouped even with reduced ticket prices. There's a bit on the sums and the technical bits here tinyurl.com/5s6hh4yPLB - I completely agree with you. Even if, for whatever reason, nothing could be done at the Brit., that's no reason for us supporting retention of the existing law. For those who agree - please sign the safe standing petition at www.fsf.org.uk
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 5, 2011 20:24:41 GMT
"I also know that he has little time for the FSF or me personally, and we'll have to live without his support, but I will just correct one point. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Potters&action=display&thread=165688&page=2#ixzz1OR1wbqttWell thats not true is it Malcolm! Im surprised you always take it personally when I dont agree with you but thats your problem. If you cant handle people disagreeing with you without reacting in the way you have and stopping little short of calling them thick then find something else to do. As far as the FSF is conserned Im the first to applaud when they do something constructive and say its bollox when they get annul about unworkable pipe dreams such as fan ownership and now this. You talk about democracy but when someone expresses a contrary opinion you do as demonstrated above. Note that it was a bit of light hearted rubbish between John and I before you rowed in and started referring to me in the third party. Like most people I dont give sitting or standing two seconds of brainspace when I am at a match. I have done nothing worse than suggest it is a sideshow subject that is completely a non-starter at this moment. Spiderpuss's post sums it up rather well. Regards M
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 5, 2011 20:37:08 GMT
I notice that the Green Guide specifies a maximum gradient for safe standing - anyone know what the gradients in the Boothen/Seddon stands are? There are actually two gradients, with the first 12 (ish) rows being at a slightly shallower angle to the rows above.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 5, 2011 20:38:57 GMT
"Note that it was a bit of light hearted rubbish between John and I before you rowed in and started referring to me in the third party."
You might think it was lighthearted rubbish between us, Mark - I started the thread because I feel seriously about the issue - I hope you understand that.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 5, 2011 20:46:49 GMT
"Note that it was a bit of light hearted rubbish between John and I before you rowed in and started referring to me in the third party." You might think it was lighthearted rubbish with me Mark - I started the thread because I feel seriously about the issue - I hope you understand that. I was referring to the knock about tone ie your joke about a brother and mine about Gunnar. I have to say, I have no idea why you should lose any sleep on this matter but thats up to you. I think Ive done more to bring it to people's attention than the misleading article linked to by Malcolm claiming it has the support of the majority of Wolves fans as it happens! Im now leaving it be as I guess my view is clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 5, 2011 20:49:58 GMT
"I have to say, I have no idea why you should lose any sleep on this matter but thats up to you."
- Too right it is up to me - I was never under any illusions that it wasn't! ;D
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 5, 2011 20:53:56 GMT
"I have to say, I have no idea why you should lose any sleep on this matter but thats up to you." - Too right it is up to me - I was never under any illusions that it wasn't! ;D I suspect you are now trying to keep the thread up the board Remember that making sure there aren't multi threads on this narrow subject is up to me whilst you are flexing your Independence
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 5, 2011 21:41:07 GMT
"I also know that he has little time for the FSF or me personally, and we'll have to live without his support, but I will just correct one point. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Potters&action=display&thread=165688&page=2#ixzz1OR1wbqttWell thats not true is it Malcolm! Im surprised you always take it personally when I dont agree with you but thats your problem.If you cant handle people disagreeing with you without reacting in the way you have and stopping little short of calling them thick then find something else to do. As far as the FSF is conserned Im the first to applaud when they do something constructive and say its bollox when they get annul about unworkable pipe dreams such as fan ownership and now this. You talk about democracy but when someone expresses a contrary opinion you do as demonstrated above. Note that it was a bit of light hearted rubbish between John and I before you rowed in and started referring to me in the third party. Like most people I dont give sitting or standing two seconds of brainspace when I am at a match. I have done nothing worse than suggest it is a sideshow subject that is completely a non-starter at this moment. Spiderpuss's post sums it up rather well. Regards M I'm not surprised by that at all, given your tone throughout the whole of this thread. You're being negative and antagonistic and using smokescreens to avoid actual debate, which has surprised me, having read posts of yours previously. I've read your long post above in detail and I honestly can't for the life of me understand why you would have such a big problem with a campaign which simply aims to allow clubs to give supporters a choice about something if they want to do it. Nobody's advocating forcing clubs (or supporters) to do it. You have misrepresented Malcolm's (and others') arguments quite drastically - your suggestion that MC was trying to say that the Ellis Park incident happened because the stadium was all-seater is frankly laughable, as is your suggestion that he was upholding Scunthorpe as a fine example for everyone to follow... talk about twisting words. The only point you've made in this thread that comes close to relevance is the one about potential hooligan problems. I don't agree but it at least addresses your opposition to the campaign. For the record, as a football fan this issue is extremely important to me, and if Stoke were to spend money on a standing section I would be absolutely delighted - yes, even if it meant we had to snip a few thousand a week off what we were offering Carlton Cole. I don't know what your issue is about all this but please don't try and pretend this is all some fanciful pipe dream invented by a minority of loonies just because you don't happen to see the point in it.
|
|
|
Post by french toast on Jun 5, 2011 22:46:13 GMT
"I have to say, I have no idea why you should lose any sleep on this matter but thats up to you." - Too right it is up to me - I was never under any illusions that it wasn't! ;D I suspect you are now trying to keep the thread up the board Remember that making sure there aren't multi threads on this narrow subject is up to me whilst you are flexing your Independence I'm suprised you have not deleted the thread....or at least deleted the posts that make you look quite foolish......isnt that usual practice?
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jun 5, 2011 22:49:55 GMT
Enjoy that 03:30 knock at the door, 1000!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 5, 2011 22:51:31 GMT
I really don't understand the third party reference, Mark, unless you just mean me responding to your points without mentioning you by name. As well as misrepresenting my arguments, I think you have made it quite personal but other posters can read the tone and content of your posts, particularly the last long one, and make their own judgement on that. The thread had long since been a serious debate not lighthearted banter when I "rowed in" as you put it. And since the thread was about the FSF roadshow and a meeting I spoke at, it was entirely appropriate for me to "row in". As for your view of the FSF you described us as both "useless" and "professional supporters" on John's facebook page or "cause hungry fan activists" on here (right about the activists bit) so I think my conclusion on that point was fair. But this is not about Parton and Clarke. It's about a serious issue which is of great interest and concern to many supporters which is why it on the FSF agenda as well as one political party. Quite apart from having a mandate and instruction from our members to take this forward I remain confident both that we do represent the views of the majority of all supporters on this and that the evidence is on our side. But I certainly don't promise an easy win. sign the petition www.fsf.org.uk
|
|
|
Post by One-Two on Jun 5, 2011 22:58:36 GMT
I blame the academy.
|
|
|
Post by Time4aPINT on Jun 5, 2011 23:02:17 GMT
Only just spotted this thread, I'm sure campaigning for a change in legislation with regard to allowing safe standing if clubs and supporters want it is what the vast majority of football fans would want. I cannot understand the hostility and negativity shown in MarkW's posts on this thread. Full credit to the FSF for their hard work in keeping this campaign going. I'm not sure if they are likely to have much success in the near future but the best of luck to them on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jun 5, 2011 23:11:36 GMT
MC is correct in what he says.
|
|
|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Jun 5, 2011 23:29:08 GMT
I suspect you are now trying to keep the thread up the board Remember that making sure there aren't multi threads on this narrow subject is up to me whilst you are flexing your Independence I'm suprised you have not deleted the thread....or at least deleted the posts that make you look quite foolish......isnt that usual practice? See you in a week ;D
|
|
|
Post by PoisonedDonkey on Jun 5, 2011 23:33:33 GMT
;D ;D Love it when everyone makes a moderator look like a complete dick. (Not that you are obviously, in fact I think you're fucking awesome and your son was robbed). Don't ban me.
|
|
|
Post by PoisonedDonkey on Jun 5, 2011 23:43:18 GMT
I wasn't going to delete it. ;D
You're mistaking me with Rhodesy or Penkhull.
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Jun 5, 2011 23:52:07 GMT
Could the Stoke part of the South Stand become our standing area? We'd all like the boothen (well not all) but surely this is most feasible
|
|