|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 23, 2021 16:45:21 GMT
Most of us who remember standing on the Boothen on a cold night when you could walk around to keep your feet warm are most proberly to old to stand up leaning forward on a rail for over 90min. As stated safe standing will not be like it was when you used meet in the same place week in week. But more seriously what financial advantage would this give us.It will not increase capacity,there will be a cost. where would it be situated? I may be wrong but I believe that you can actually have more standing than you can seated in the same area How it works I haven’t a clue
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Sept 23, 2021 16:47:46 GMT
Another disappointing response from Stoke with the same old non-committal,let's wait until all the other clubs get this before us.It makes me wonder if the club have even looked into the whole safe standing idea at all over the last few years. Again for me, I feel it's up to us fans who want this to keep badgering the club and the supporters council to do a feasibility study on how we can implement safe standing at Stoke.If club's like Shrewsbury,Bristol City and Cardiff can implement this to name but a few why can't Stoke.I just wish Stoke would be a bit more forward thinking for once. The shockwaves of going contactless are still being felt. Wait for that to die down before we think about safe standing
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 23, 2021 17:24:01 GMT
Most of us who remember standing on the Boothen on a cold night when you could walk around to keep your feet warm are most proberly to old to stand up leaning forward on a rail for over 90min. As stated safe standing will not be like it was when you used meet in the same place week in week. But more seriously what financial advantage would this give us.It will not increase capacity,there will be a cost. where would it be situated? I may be wrong but I believe that you can actually have more standing than you can seated in the same area How it works I haven’t a clue The regulations at this moment is one person standing per seat.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 23, 2021 17:58:56 GMT
I may be wrong but I believe that you can actually have more standing than you can seated in the same area How it works I haven’t a clue The regulations at this moment is one person standing per seat. Then to be honest there isn’t a financial incentive to put safe standing in
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 23, 2021 18:07:20 GMT
I thought this was a thread about where the permanently offended brigade were being housed at the ground. Won’t be long mind 😉
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 24, 2021 20:42:59 GMT
I should pay particular tribute to a lad called Phil Gatenby. Phil is a Man City fan who, back in the day, started "SAFE" - "Standing Areas for Eastlands" to try to get a standing area included in what was then the new Man City stadium. He didn't succeed of course, but then led the FSA's national campaign for many years, including suffering public ridicule from the then Chief Executive of the Football Licensing Authority ( as the SGSA was called in those days). But Phil never gave up making the argument and collecting the evidence, and inspired many to keep up the campaign. He eventually emigrated to the USA but I'm sure he will be raising a glass over there this morning. Thanks Phil - we did it in the end, and your role hasn't been forgotten. Malcolm Do you have any idea yet how it will work will it be a allocated space for each ticket So you’re not necessarily standing next to mates or family Or will it be more of a stand where you wish within the area you have a ticket for I now have the answer to your question. There will be an allocated space ("rail seat") for each ticket because the SGSA don't want fans congregating in aisles etc. That said, I think in practice stewards will not try to make you stand in exactly the allocated spot which would be more difficult than say trying to make fans sit down, because you can walk to the concourse etc., unless there is dangerous congestion. This is what has happened at Celtic Park where you can move away from your allocated spot.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 24, 2021 20:59:01 GMT
Malcolm Do you have any idea yet how it will work will it be a allocated space for each ticket So you’re not necessarily standing next to mates or family Or will it be more of a stand where you wish within the area you have a ticket for I now have the answer to your question. There will be an allocated space ("rail seat") for each ticket because the SGSA don't want fans congregating in aisles etc. That said, I think in practice stewards will not try to make you stand in exactly the allocated spot which would be more difficult than say trying to make fans sit down, because you can walk to the concourse etc., unless there is dangerous congestion. This is what has happened at Celtic Park where you can move away from your allocated spot. Thanks for that Even if it’s not what I want to hear
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 4, 2021 13:06:20 GMT
It shouldn't just be a question to the club, which might get the same non-committal/negative response as previously, but a firm request that, now that the legal position has changed, which was always given as the reason for not doing anything, the Club should undertake a consultation with the fan base and a feasibility study. The Sentinel report www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-safe-standing-bet365-5958172?utm_source=stokeontrent_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=scfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=emailquotes the Supporters Council Chair as predicting that the Club will "monitor" the situation, which is effectively no change, but does not give an indication that the Council will press for much more than that, now that the legal position has changed significantly. Although the formal announcement has only just been made, it has been known that it's coming (hence my TV appearance with Roger Johnson). I don't know what the basis of the SC Chair's prediction is, but I hope that, as I said above, the Council will do much more than just ask the club about its intentions, but will press for supporter consultation and an options appaisal, not just "monitoring" the situation (whatever that means - what exactly would be "monitored" ? ). In the light of the Supporters’ Council Chair’s comments that “it’s not as simple as just removing seats” I decided to investigate just what the position is likely to be at the Bet 365. I asked Jon Darch, a longstanding campaigner for safe standing, what information we would need from the Club to assess feasibility. Jon, who is an anorak on this subject, appeared in the film which preceded my discussion on the Breakfast programme to which a link was provided above. I doubt whether there is anyone outside the SGSA who has his technical knowledge and understanding. Here is his response Good to hear from you. I've not opened the bottle yet. I think I'll wait until all clubs, not just 'early adopters', have the freedom to offer fans the option of standing……….. ……you're right about the measurements required. In fact, I can tell you now that it will be feasible. In any stadium as new as yours it is. The measurements of interest are, however: Seat width (also called seat centres): measured from the centre of one seat to the centre of the next (sometimes seats are spaced with a small gap between them, so this centre-to-centre measurement is key, not the width of the seating unit alone). This is likely in your case to be 460mm or 480mm. Seating row depth: measured from the front lip of the concrete that you stand on to the face of riser at the back of the row. This is likely to be 720mm or 760mm. The height of the risers: measured from the surface of the tread of one row up to the lip of the tread of the next row. The riser heights in the stadium will probably not be uniform. Most modern stands have a parabolic rake, with shallow risers at the front and gradually higher risers as you move back. A spot check of the riser height on the front row, one about halfway back and the back row would be of interest. However, rail seats can be fitted on any row. If the riser is very shallow, they simply get bolted into the floor instead. That's it. A couple of things to bear in mind: if the seat centres turn out to be 480mm, it may be possible to make any installation self-funding. At Wolves they had 480mm centres and reduced that to 460mm for the hybrid rail seats that they put in. They thus gained one seat on every standard row of 28. Their architects needed to check, of course, that the vomitories, concourses etc. were adequate for the larger numbers, but they were, so away they went. If the row depths turn out to be 750mm or more, there could be scope, as and when allowed, to make use of the Green Guide provision for having more than one standing fan per seat space. In that case, the Guide says, you must run an intermediate step along each row (like you saw at Dortmund) and the depth of the step and tread in front of it must each be 350mm. So, if the rail seat has a closed depth of 50mm, this can be achieved on a 750mm row. This is exactly what Everton have in their plans for Bramley Moore Dock. It does, however, require a law change, as grounds will then no longer be offering "seated accommodation" to every spectator. For a retrofit, it will also require a good look, as above, at vomitories and concourses and may require some alterations. But the potential capacity uplift on a 750mm row is 50%. So, it's worth making provision for it. Away fans. As you know it's a requirement that any club providing safe standing for home fans must also do so for away fans. So, the club would have to do something there (there is no specification as to how much of the away area should be standing; some must be left as sitting). SPACE. The all-important issue! The new SGSA rules make it clear that if any lack of space along the row could force fans in bulky winter coats (thus, the rules say, 600mm wide) to spill out into the aisles, capacity must be cut. If, however, the rules say, the space along the row is deep enough for fans to stand slightly forward or backward of each other so that their shoulders overlap and they are all able to stand within the lateral confines of the row, then no capacity cut is required. The attached 'white paper' illustrates this.
[/i] We saw on Friday that the entire WBA away support was standing. If we want Stokies away from home to have a real choice as to whether to sit or stand in properly designed areas, we can’t expect other clubs to do it if we are not prepared to do it ourselves. The home fans in the adjacent block were also all standing, as they were at the back of the Boothen End. I think the Supporters Council should not just ask the Club for its views, but strongly argue for a proper consultation with fans about what we would like to see happen at the Bet 365. The SC Chair predicts that the Club will “monitor” the situation. I don’t know what that prediction is based upon, but if that were to be the response I’m afraid it’s just a meaningless euphemism for doing nothing at all. What exactly is there to monitor ? The legal position has now changed fundamentally. The case for consultation with the fans is now surely overwhelming. If the Club won’t do it, someone else should.
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Oct 4, 2021 13:25:28 GMT
I am old but would prefer to stand at games. I think there is potential for an improved atmosphere even if no increase in capacity. As long as those who want or need to sit down can do so, what's the problem? I do, however, have my concern about being near a vomitory
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 4, 2021 13:49:10 GMT
The Sentinel report www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-safe-standing-bet365-5958172?utm_source=stokeontrent_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=scfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=emailquotes the Supporters Council Chair as predicting that the Club will "monitor" the situation, which is effectively no change, but does not give an indication that the Council will press for much more than that, now that the legal position has changed significantly. Although the formal announcement has only just been made, it has been known that it's coming (hence my TV appearance with Roger Johnson). I don't know what the basis of the SC Chair's prediction is, but I hope that, as I said above, the Council will do much more than just ask the club about its intentions, but will press for supporter consultation and an options appaisal, not just "monitoring" the situation (whatever that means - what exactly would be "monitored" ? ). In the light of the Supporters’ Council Chair’s comments that “it’s not as simple as just removing seats” I decided to investigate just what the position is likely to be at the Bet 365. I asked Jon Darch, a longstanding campaigner for safe standing, what information we would need from the Club to assess feasibility. Jon, who is an anorak on this subject, appeared in the film which preceded my discussion on the Breakfast programme to which a link was provided above. I doubt whether there is anyone outside the SGSA who has his technical knowledge and understanding. Here is his response Good to hear from you. I've not opened the bottle yet. I think I'll wait until all clubs, not just 'early adopters', have the freedom to offer fans the option of standing……….. ……you're right about the measurements required. In fact, I can tell you now that it will be feasible. In any stadium as new as yours it is. The measurements of interest are, however: Seat width (also called seat centres): measured from the centre of one seat to the centre of the next (sometimes seats are spaced with a small gap between them, so this centre-to-centre measurement is key, not the width of the seating unit alone). This is likely in your case to be 460mm or 480mm. Seating row depth: measured from the front lip of the concrete that you stand on to the face of riser at the back of the row. This is likely to be 720mm or 760mm. The height of the risers: measured from the surface of the tread of one row up to the lip of the tread of the next row. The riser heights in the stadium will probably not be uniform. Most modern stands have a parabolic rake, with shallow risers at the front and gradually higher risers as you move back. A spot check of the riser height on the front row, one about halfway back and the back row would be of interest. However, rail seats can be fitted on any row. If the riser is very shallow, they simply get bolted into the floor instead. That's it. A couple of things to bear in mind: if the seat centres turn out to be 480mm, it may be possible to make any installation self-funding. At Wolves they had 480mm centres and reduced that to 460mm for the hybrid rail seats that they put in. They thus gained one seat on every standard row of 28. Their architects needed to check, of course, that the vomitories, concourses etc. were adequate for the larger numbers, but they were, so away they went. If the row depths turn out to be 750mm or more, there could be scope, as and when allowed, to make use of the Green Guide provision for having more than one standing fan per seat space. In that case, the Guide says, you must run an intermediate step along each row (like you saw at Dortmund) and the depth of the step and tread in front of it must each be 350mm. So, if the rail seat has a closed depth of 50mm, this can be achieved on a 750mm row. This is exactly what Everton have in their plans for Bramley Moore Dock. It does, however, require a law change, as grounds will then no longer be offering "seated accommodation" to every spectator. For a retrofit, it will also require a good look, as above, at vomitories and concourses and may require some alterations. But the potential capacity uplift on a 750mm row is 50%. So, it's worth making provision for it. Away fans. As you know it's a requirement that any club providing safe standing for home fans must also do so for away fans. So, the club would have to do something there (there is no specification as to how much of the away area should be standing; some must be left as sitting). SPACE. The all-important issue! The new SGSA rules make it clear that if any lack of space along the row could force fans in bulky winter coats (thus, the rules say, 600mm wide) to spill out into the aisles, capacity must be cut. If, however, the rules say, the space along the row is deep enough for fans to stand slightly forward or backward of each other so that their shoulders overlap and they are all able to stand within the lateral confines of the row, then no capacity cut is required. The attached 'white paper' illustrates this.
[/i] We saw on Friday that the entire WBA away support was standing. If we want Stokies away from home to have a real choice as to whether to sit or stand in properly designed areas, we can’t expect other clubs to do it if we are not prepared to do it ourselves. The home fans in the adjacent block were also all standing, as they were at the back of the Boothen End. I think the Supporters Council should not just ask the Club for its views, but strongly argue for a proper consultation with fans about what we would like to see happen at the Bet 365. The SC Chair predicts that the Club will “monitor” the situation. I don’t know what that prediction is based upon, but if that were to be the response I’m afraid it’s just a meaningless euphemism for doing nothing at all. What exactly is there to monitor ? The legal position has now changed fundamentally. The case for consultation with the fans is now surely overwhelming. If the Club won’t do it, someone else should. [/quote] Cheers for that Malcolm. Hopefully the Supporters Council will press the club to open up a discussion with input sought from all fans ASAP. As a matter of interest, did Peter Coates ever say why he personally was lukewarm on the prospect of rail seating when he commented on it a few years back?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 4, 2021 14:19:02 GMT
[/quote] Cheers for that Malcolm. Hopefully the Supporters Council will press the club to open up a discussion with input sought from all fans ASAP. As a matter of interest, did Peter Coates ever say why he personally was lukewarm on the prospect of rail seating when he commented on it a few years back?[/quote] Not really, John. I think he just felt that things had moved on and that it would be a backward step. The quote I gave above was also I think a political prediction - that whatever I thought, the politicians would never agree, which has proved to be wrong. In that context, you will be interested/amused to see that the martians have now landed on earth ! www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5611433.campaigners-in-a-rage-with-flas-de-quidt/I can't belive that was nearly 20 years ago. We've had to stick at it !! Don't get me started on John De Quidt !
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Oct 4, 2021 15:11:26 GMT
Malcolm , Many thanks for this as always , particularly in knowing the person to go to for accurate background detail
Also good to read confirmation that if rail seats are offered to away fans , then seats must also be provided giving away supporters a clear choice , rather than what happens now , even selecting low row seats is no guarantee that people won’t stand there
.though by default because these are likely to be front xxx rows , often resulting in poorer or restricted views , then hopefully prices in those areas will reflect that ( tho I’m realistic and won’t hold my breath on that one )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 15:25:20 GMT
I have little or no faith in the club taking this up.
I also have even less faith in our useless Council to actually try push for it.
|
|
|
Post by ashleyscfc on Oct 4, 2021 21:26:28 GMT
Malcolm how do you think we are best even talking to the club about this? It's something i'd love to happen having tried similar in Germany and as i've said previously. The smart money would be on using removed seats as part of the seat replacement yet to happen in the Franklyn Stand. It would require investment from the club but maybe an agreement could come into play regarding standing costing extra initially? The Sentinel report www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-safe-standing-bet365-5958172?utm_source=stokeontrent_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=scfc_newsletter2&utm_medium=emailquotes the Supporters Council Chair as predicting that the Club will "monitor" the situation, which is effectively no change, but does not give an indication that the Council will press for much more than that, now that the legal position has changed significantly. Although the formal announcement has only just been made, it has been known that it's coming (hence my TV appearance with Roger Johnson). I don't know what the basis of the SC Chair's prediction is, but I hope that, as I said above, the Council will do much more than just ask the club about its intentions, but will press for supporter consultation and an options appaisal, not just "monitoring" the situation (whatever that means - what exactly would be "monitored" ? ). In the light of the Supporters’ Council Chair’s comments that “it’s not as simple as just removing seats” I decided to investigate just what the position is likely to be at the Bet 365. I asked Jon Darch, a longstanding campaigner for safe standing, what information we would need from the Club to assess feasibility. Jon, who is an anorak on this subject, appeared in the film which preceded my discussion on the Breakfast programme to which a link was provided above. I doubt whether there is anyone outside the SGSA who has his technical knowledge and understanding. Here is his response Good to hear from you. I've not opened the bottle yet. I think I'll wait until all clubs, not just 'early adopters', have the freedom to offer fans the option of standing……….. ……you're right about the measurements required. In fact, I can tell you now that it will be feasible. In any stadium as new as yours it is. The measurements of interest are, however: Seat width (also called seat centres): measured from the centre of one seat to the centre of the next (sometimes seats are spaced with a small gap between them, so this centre-to-centre measurement is key, not the width of the seating unit alone). This is likely in your case to be 460mm or 480mm. Seating row depth: measured from the front lip of the concrete that you stand on to the face of riser at the back of the row. This is likely to be 720mm or 760mm. The height of the risers: measured from the surface of the tread of one row up to the lip of the tread of the next row. The riser heights in the stadium will probably not be uniform. Most modern stands have a parabolic rake, with shallow risers at the front and gradually higher risers as you move back. A spot check of the riser height on the front row, one about halfway back and the back row would be of interest. However, rail seats can be fitted on any row. If the riser is very shallow, they simply get bolted into the floor instead. That's it. A couple of things to bear in mind: if the seat centres turn out to be 480mm, it may be possible to make any installation self-funding. At Wolves they had 480mm centres and reduced that to 460mm for the hybrid rail seats that they put in. They thus gained one seat on every standard row of 28. Their architects needed to check, of course, that the vomitories, concourses etc. were adequate for the larger numbers, but they were, so away they went. If the row depths turn out to be 750mm or more, there could be scope, as and when allowed, to make use of the Green Guide provision for having more than one standing fan per seat space. In that case, the Guide says, you must run an intermediate step along each row (like you saw at Dortmund) and the depth of the step and tread in front of it must each be 350mm. So, if the rail seat has a closed depth of 50mm, this can be achieved on a 750mm row. This is exactly what Everton have in their plans for Bramley Moore Dock. It does, however, require a law change, as grounds will then no longer be offering "seated accommodation" to every spectator. For a retrofit, it will also require a good look, as above, at vomitories and concourses and may require some alterations. But the potential capacity uplift on a 750mm row is 50%. So, it's worth making provision for it. Away fans. As you know it's a requirement that any club providing safe standing for home fans must also do so for away fans. So, the club would have to do something there (there is no specification as to how much of the away area should be standing; some must be left as sitting). SPACE. The all-important issue! The new SGSA rules make it clear that if any lack of space along the row could force fans in bulky winter coats (thus, the rules say, 600mm wide) to spill out into the aisles, capacity must be cut. If, however, the rules say, the space along the row is deep enough for fans to stand slightly forward or backward of each other so that their shoulders overlap and they are all able to stand within the lateral confines of the row, then no capacity cut is required. The attached 'white paper' illustrates this.
[/i] We saw on Friday that the entire WBA away support was standing. If we want Stokies away from home to have a real choice as to whether to sit or stand in properly designed areas, we can’t expect other clubs to do it if we are not prepared to do it ourselves. The home fans in the adjacent block were also all standing, as they were at the back of the Boothen End. I think the Supporters Council should not just ask the Club for its views, but strongly argue for a proper consultation with fans about what we would like to see happen at the Bet 365. The SC Chair predicts that the Club will “monitor” the situation. I don’t know what that prediction is based upon, but if that were to be the response I’m afraid it’s just a meaningless euphemism for doing nothing at all. What exactly is there to monitor ? The legal position has now changed fundamentally. The case for consultation with the fans is now surely overwhelming. If the Club won’t do it, someone else should. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 5, 2021 13:54:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Oct 5, 2021 14:55:59 GMT
No thanks, I remember the "good" old days.
|
|
|
Post by innercitysumo on Oct 5, 2021 15:14:30 GMT
No thanks, I remember the "good" old days. It won’t be anything like that though, you probably need to do a bit of research on it
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Oct 5, 2021 15:44:21 GMT
People moaning they’re too old to stand for 90 minutes don’t have a valid point.
They’ll always be able to sit somewhere in the ground and football is afterall, a young mans game.
The Boothen end currently resembles the cast of cocoon.
Something drastic needs to be done to liven up home games.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Oct 5, 2021 16:16:27 GMT
No thanks, I remember the "good" old days. It won’t be anything like that though, you probably need to do a bit of research on it I wouldn't be so sure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 17:38:33 GMT
People moaning they’re too old to stand for 90 minutes don’t have a valid point. They’ll always be able to sit somewhere in the ground and football is afterall, a young mans game. The Boothen end currently resembles the cast of cocoon. Something drastic needs to be done to liven up home games. Get promoted to the premiership, then knock down the current "boothen end" and build a big iconic new terrace worthy of the name. We currently have > 5k empty seats so whilst I'm sure there will be a fuss from some longterm occupants of that end, relocation would hardly be the end of the world. I'm guessing a majority would stay in a standing boothen end anyway. If we built a new terrace there (could prob have it for closer to 10k people than the current, which is around 5k I think?) then the ground would finally start to feel like home. Although I suppose if we get promoted to the premiership then we'd prob be averaging 27k+ a game again. But I still think that leaves enough room for maybe the 1.5k or so relocators to find seats elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by TinkerT on Oct 5, 2021 19:07:45 GMT
People moaning they’re too old to stand for 90 minutes don’t have a valid point. They’ll always be able to sit somewhere in the ground and football is afterall, a young mans game. The Boothen end currently resembles the cast of cocoon. Something drastic needs to be done to liven up home games. Get promoted to the premiership, then knock down the current "boothen end" and build a big iconic new terrace worthy of the name. We currently have > 5k empty seats so whilst I'm sure there will be a fuss from some longterm occupants of that end, relocation would hardly be the end of the world. I'm guessing a majority would stay in a standing boothen end anyway. If we built a new terrace there (could prob have it for closer to 10k people than the current, which is around 5k I think?) then the ground would finally start to feel like home. Although I suppose if we get promoted to the premiership then we'd prob be averaging 27k+ a game again. But I still think that leaves enough room for maybe the 1.5k or so relocators to find seats elsewhere. And where are those people filling the extra seats supposed to park? Leaving the ground already is like a carpark for a hour odd. It needs a new slip road or some kind of train/tram system to get numbers of fans away quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 19:55:15 GMT
Get promoted to the premiership, then knock down the current "boothen end" and build a big iconic new terrace worthy of the name. We currently have > 5k empty seats so whilst I'm sure there will be a fuss from some longterm occupants of that end, relocation would hardly be the end of the world. I'm guessing a majority would stay in a standing boothen end anyway. If we built a new terrace there (could prob have it for closer to 10k people than the current, which is around 5k I think?) then the ground would finally start to feel like home. Although I suppose if we get promoted to the premiership then we'd prob be averaging 27k+ a game again. But I still think that leaves enough room for maybe the 1.5k or so relocators to find seats elsewhere. And where are those people filling the extra seats supposed to park? Leaving the ground already is like a carpark for a hour odd. It needs a new slip road or some kind of train/tram system to get numbers of fans away quickly. Stop pissing on my pipe-dream with logic.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 5, 2021 20:06:30 GMT
The regulations at this moment is one person standing per seat. Then to be honest there isn’t a financial incentive to put safe standing in My understanding is this is standing behind a folded up numbered seat gummed to a rail. So it's kind of standing without the main advantage of standing which is moving around. The return of terraces sadly it ain't. We're not going to be roaming around like the Apache once again!
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 5, 2021 21:03:28 GMT
I have little or no faith in the club taking this up. I also have even less faith in our useless Council to actually try push for it. Good!
|
|
|
Post by stick7 on Oct 5, 2021 21:09:17 GMT
Then to be honest there isn’t a financial incentive to put safe standing in My understanding is this is standing behind a folded up numbered seat gummed to a rail. So it's kind of standing without the main advantage of standing which is moving around. The return of terraces sadly it ain't. We're not going to be roaming around like the Apache once again! Yes it certainly wouldn't be a return to the old terraces but I think this is as good as we're going to be allowed for the foreseeable which I would be quite happy with.At least it would give us fans who prefer to stand the choice we've been hoping for for a long time. And for the fans who prefer to sit this will surely only benefit them as they won't be forced to stand by the persistent standers as we would be in separate sections of the ground. Everyone's a winner as far as I'm concerned.Bring it on
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Oct 5, 2021 21:24:51 GMT
People moaning they’re too old to stand for 90 minutes don’t have a valid point. They’ll always be able to sit somewhere in the ground and football is afterall, a young mans game. The Boothen end currently resembles the cast of cocoon. Something drastic needs to be done to liven up home games. Get promoted to the premiership, then knock down the current "boothen end" and build a big iconic new terrace worthy of the name. We currently have > 5k empty seats so whilst I'm sure there will be a fuss from some longterm occupants of that end, relocation would hardly be the end of the world. I'm guessing a majority would stay in a standing boothen end anyway. If we built a new terrace there (could prob have it for closer to 10k people than the current, which is around 5k I think?) then the ground would finally start to feel like home. Although I suppose if we get promoted to the premiership then we'd prob be averaging 27k+ a game again. But I still think that leaves enough room for maybe the 1.5k or so relocators to find seats elsewhere. The Boothen holds 6k but there’s zero chance they will bulldoze and rebuild it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2021 21:43:19 GMT
Get promoted to the premiership, then knock down the current "boothen end" and build a big iconic new terrace worthy of the name. We currently have > 5k empty seats so whilst I'm sure there will be a fuss from some longterm occupants of that end, relocation would hardly be the end of the world. I'm guessing a majority would stay in a standing boothen end anyway. If we built a new terrace there (could prob have it for closer to 10k people than the current, which is around 5k I think?) then the ground would finally start to feel like home. Although I suppose if we get promoted to the premiership then we'd prob be averaging 27k+ a game again. But I still think that leaves enough room for maybe the 1.5k or so relocators to find seats elsewhere. The Boothen holds 6k but there’s zero chance they will bulldoze and rebuild it. I think it’s spectacularly unlikely too. Doesn’t stop me wanting it.
|
|
|
Post by innercitysumo on Oct 5, 2021 21:49:46 GMT
I have little or no faith in the club taking this up. I also have even less faith in our useless Council to actually try push for it. Good! Yeah I mean imagine people having a choice
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 0:18:56 GMT
Yeah I mean imagine people having a choice He argued against this several years ago. His argument was literally “I personally don’t wish to stand therefore standing should never return”, and I’m still not entirely sure he understands why that’s not an effective argument…
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 6, 2021 7:45:19 GMT
Yeah I mean imagine people having a choice He argued against this several years ago. His argument was literally “I personally don’t wish to stand therefore standing should never return”, and I’m still not entirely sure he understands why that’s not an effective argument… I can never understand why people would rather stand than sit in a comfortable, seat unless they suffer from piles......get some anusol cream on yer arse and sit down boy!
|
|