|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 9, 2013 22:03:42 GMT
Hollybush, every single supporters survey that I'm aware of has shown a substantial majority of favour of choice - even from among those who would themselves choose to continue to sit. You can see the results of many of them in Peter Caton's excellent book on this subject "Stand up; Sit Down" which you can get on Amazon for £6.89 www.amazon.co.uk/Stand-Up-Sit-Down-Football/dp/1780881770If you are interested in the standing debate, it's an excellent read for the beach this summer. It's the best coverage of all of the aspects of this debate that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 9, 2013 23:00:58 GMT
Massive step back, I hope the campaign dies on its arse! Good luck! Nothing to stop you or anyone else continuing to park their fat arse on a rock hard plastic seat on a match day so why be all bitter and twisted about letting those of us fit enough to stand do so in peace? Live and let live
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 9, 2013 23:25:55 GMT
Why do you call it 'safe standing' as a matter of interest, Malc? I could understand referring it as safer than some standing used to be but safe??? It's a good question, Mark. You get into linguistics here. Some of my colleagues think we shouldn't be afraid of using the word terracing, because of course there are still terraces at many clubs in leagues 1 and 2 ( and indeed the Championship last season with Peterborough) which meet Green Guide requirements and are licensed by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and Local authorities as "safe". Of course, no football ground ( or rugby ground, racecourse etc or railway train, road etc ) is totally risk-free, i,e 100% safe, unless it's empty. The Green Guide defines what constitutes a required level of "safety" for both seated and standing areas and we would not advocate departing from that. "safe standing" is a convenient piece of shorthand to indicate that it would comply with the safety standards of the day i.e the Green Guide. It is not true that you you would necessarily have an allocated space if "rail seats" were introduced. I missed our last game of the season because I was part of a delegation which went to see Borussia Dortmund's last home game of the season to see their standing arrangments in a match at first hand. We stood in the "rail seats" on the famous "yellow wall" - 24,000 standing fans behind one goal. You get a ticket for a particular section, and the number of tickets sold for each section cannot exceed its safe capacity, but once in that section, you can stand where you like, feeling very safe because of the rails. Needless to say, the atmosphere was fantastic. Thank you Malc. I tend to agree with the idea of calling it terracing. Probably as much to do with my own age that anything else. The word just evokes memories of a by-gone age when football was somehow more part of the community. I admire the German models you refer to and can completely identify with a wish to see such structures and arrangements in place at our own clubs if it allowed once again access to the masses (price). However I am a sceptic on the basis I dont trust the people running our game and games to administer them safely or to price them reasonably. I'm not sure that the wish to exploit the freedoms terracing presents would not be exploited by the latent but still present hooligan elements either. Disasters of the past did not occur because terracing was unsafe as we know.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jun 9, 2013 23:54:18 GMT
A bad idea mainly because if your a bit of a shorty like me you can't see anything especially when 5 mins before kickoff you get some 6 foot 4 giant place himself in front of you. Now I'm a pretty placid guy but I can imagine there'd be an increase in arrests when you get lads coming in late from the pub expecting to push there way to the front and causing those whove been there for half an hour to get cheesed off before words start getting exchanged followed by fisticuffs. I think it's unfair on people who want to sit and particularly the young who when seated can watch the game without obstruction. The only way I'd be happy would be if they did it in the corners where it didn't effect those seats already in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by tijuanabrass on Jun 10, 2013 6:26:50 GMT
Its a strange one this. It seems there are those in the anti-standing camp that are treating the proposal as if it implies grounds will be standing only! What's wrong with giving people the choice? What's wrong with allowing families that can't afford 5 or 6 season tickets the opportunity to go and watch their local team? What's wrong with letting people who used to enjoy a bit of atmosphere at the football, have the chance to taste that emotion again? The removal of terracing was cultural emasculation. Those who think terracing is synonymous with thuggery and death can surely only have started attending games in the 90s or later.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 10, 2013 6:31:47 GMT
Hillsborough is still a raw memory and a lot of lessons were learned and actions taken which have massively improved the football watching experience. However terraces were not the cause of the tragedy and certainly if terraces were designed as per the safe standing rail seats such a tragedy could not have happened. The stupid thing about the current no standing rules is that it is very difficult to enforce and as a result it forces people to stand if their view is blocked by people in front who are standing. Where is the choice then for people who actually want to sit such as Mabel who got caught up in a crowd surge at Southampton? When we had terraces and seats, you never had standing in seated areas. You paid your money and took your choice. And that's how it should be! BM Terraces did not cause the Hillsborough tragedy I agree. But, IMHO, the unsafe terracing at Leppings Lane End contributed massively to the domino effect of the police mistakes. Anyway that's another debate but agree that the return of safe terracing is a good thing. I am surprised that there has not been an accident in seated terraces with so many people standing and no barriers.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 10, 2013 6:36:01 GMT
Is there any guarantee that says terraced areas will be cheaper tickets??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 6:37:29 GMT
Dortmund's Westfalenstadion is an interesting one to draw parallels from. Take a look on Google street view, as they have a complete walkaround from the inside of their stadium and their "safe" terrace looks like it came straight from the English 80's. Small steps and it's even split into "pens" like Hillsbrough!? Westfalen Stadion Street View
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jun 10, 2013 6:59:29 GMT
There are many, many people, including me, who don't want to stand. We have found excellent seats in the Boothen and elsewhere, which we have had for many years. Why should we be forced to give them up so you lot can stand? What is your solution for all the fans who are happy the way things are? You want to stand, so fuck 'em? Sit at the front, i presume.. Standing at our games is rife home & away anyway, so can't see the issue as long as they stay towards the back. TEST A number of fans were hurt when sitting at the front at an away game at WBA last season. The "standing fans" came surging forward when we scored. In fact some fell onto the floor between the seats For away games it is difficult to select what maybe a "suitable sitting area" in our away allocation when so many won't sit down. I'm not in favour of standing, I realise it is very difficult to police this, so maybe small pockets could be allocated to trial this. At the Brit, this could be the open corner as those who strongly agree that standing should be allowed would surely get their tickets in this stand. Realistically I wonder how many would move though?
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jun 10, 2013 8:05:40 GMT
Sit at the front, i presume.. Standing at our games is rife home & away anyway, so can't see the issue as long as they stay towards the back. TEST A number of fans were hurt when sitting at the front at an away game at WBA last season. The "standing fans" came surging forward when we scored. In fact some fell onto the floor between the seats For away games it is difficult to select what maybe a "suitable sitting area" in our away allocation when so many won't sit down. I'm not in favour of standing, I realise it is very difficult to police this, so maybe small pockets could be allocated to trial this. At the Brit, this could be the open corner as those who strongly agree that standing should be allowed would surely get their tickets in this stand. Realistically I wonder how many would move though? To be fair though most people jump to their feet if we score so it wouldn't really stop incidents like the WBA one you describe.
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Jun 10, 2013 8:34:55 GMT
A number of fans were hurt when sitting at the front at an away game at WBA last season. The "standing fans" came surging forward when we scored. In fact some fell onto the floor between the seats For away games it is difficult to select what maybe a "suitable sitting area" in our away allocation when so many won't sit down. I'm not in favour of standing, I realise it is very difficult to police this, so maybe small pockets could be allocated to trial this. At the Brit, this could be the open corner as those who strongly agree that standing should be allowed would surely get their tickets in this stand. Realistically I wonder how many would move though? To be fair though most people jump to their feet if we score so it wouldn't really stop incidents like the WBA one you describe. Yes it would because a) there would be a barrier between each two rows and b) the pissed up idiots at WBA who were standing in the gangway at the front would probably not have been in the seated area at all if they had a choice. BM
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 10, 2013 8:43:02 GMT
Dortmund's Westfalenstadion is an interesting one to draw parallels from. Take a look on Google street view, as they have a complete walkaround from the inside of their stadium and their "safe" terrace looks like it came straight from the English 80's. Small steps and it's even split into "pens" like Hillsbrough!? Westfalen Stadion Street ViewThat picture is looking up from the lower part of that end which does have "traditional" terraces. The area behind it at the back of the stand is the "rail seats". The problem with the Hillsborough pens was not the pens per se, but the fact that the tickets allowed access to anywhere in the whole end so that individual pens could (and did) become completetly overcrowded, whilst the outer pens were under-populated. No-one would advocate that, and the Green Guide certainly wouldn't allow it, and it isn't what happens at Dortmund.
|
|
|
Post by steino1966 on Jun 10, 2013 9:34:18 GMT
Would love see safe standing at all football grounds across Great Britain, why not give the people a choice? Just five thousand being able to stand at the Brit would be ace and people who want to sit can still sit. Everyone wins!
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 10, 2013 9:43:35 GMT
I don't understand an attitude which says in effect 'I don't want to stand so I don't see why any other bugger should'.
Surely you can see that standing would make the sitting experience better for those who want to sit since it would make the stewards job much easier in ensuring folks don't stand in seated areas since they could point out to people there is somewhere where they can stand should they wish to do so.
At the moment the only armoury to enforce sitting which the stewards have is to say in effect 'I'm a big fat bastard and you're going to sit down ' which doesn't really take us too far forward.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 9:56:29 GMT
I have no problem with people having the choice to stand, but many of the solutions on here take away my choice to sit WHERE I WANT. Solve that problem for all the people who want to retain their current seat(because moving would inevitably be to a worse seat) and you would have my full support. However, nobody seems to be able to come up with any answer other than 'I want to be able to stand, so you'll have to move'. Not much choice for me is there?
Anyway, as the Brit is already near capacity, where would the people displaced by standing areas go, if they didn't want to stand?
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 9:59:53 GMT
Its a strange one this. It seems there are those in the anti-standing camp that are treating the proposal as if it implies grounds will be standing only! What's wrong with giving people the choice? What's wrong with allowing families that can't afford 5 or 6 season tickets the opportunity to go and watch their local team? What's wrong with letting people who used to enjoy a bit of atmosphere at the football, have the chance to taste that emotion again? The removal of terracing was cultural emasculation. Those who think terracing is synonymous with thuggery and death can surely only have started attending games in the 90s or later. You seem to be confusing standing areas with on-the-day payment turnstiles. Do you seriously think that the standing areas wouldn't also be mostly season tickets? No club in the Prem is going to have standing areas that allow pay at the turnstile type entry like the good old days. The capacity would have to be strictly limited, so it would have to be ticket only, either season ticket or pay in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jun 10, 2013 10:57:27 GMT
For those who are interested, there will be a workshop on this at the Supporters Summit ( the joint annual conference of the FSF and Supporters direct) on 22 June - just down the road from Stoke at St.George's Park the new national football centre (worth seeing in its own right). Paul Faulkener, the Chief Executive of Aston Villa, one of the prime advocates of a safe standing trial will be speaking. Details here www.supporterssummit.co.uk/
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 10, 2013 11:01:45 GMT
For those who are interested, there will be a workshop on this at the Supporters Summit ( the joint annual conference of the FSF and Supporters direct) on 22 June - just down the road from Stoke at St.George's Park the new national football centre (worth seeing in its own right). Paul Faulkener, the Chief Executive of Aston Villa, one of the prime advocates of a safe standing trial will be speaking. Details here www.supporterssummit.co.uk/ Thanks Malcolm. Villa are appearing as a forward looking club with what they are attempting to do with youth on the pitch and for fans off it right now. I'm sure they will hit plenty of hurdles along the way to driving change but all power to their elbow I say.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Jun 10, 2013 11:24:09 GMT
I have no problem with people having the choice to stand, but many of the solutions on here take away my choice to sit WHERE I WANT. Solve that problem for all the people who want to retain their current seat(because moving would inevitably be to a worse seat) and you would have my full support. However, nobody seems to be able to come up with any answer other than 'I want to be able to stand, so you'll have to move'. Not much choice for me is there? Anyway, as the Brit is already near capacity, where would the people displaced by standing areas go, if they didn't want to stand? firstly, the obvious solution is to expand the ground and have that part as the standing area. To answer your question, if people had to move to accommodate the standing area, those people would be able to take the seats of those who moved to the standing area to the seated. After all, the introduction would probably not see a huge influx in attendances (maybe a small one) so the seats of most who move to the standing area would be open for others to take.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 12:05:51 GMT
I have no problem with people having the choice to stand, but many of the solutions on here take away my choice to sit WHERE I WANT. Solve that problem for all the people who want to retain their current seat(because moving would inevitably be to a worse seat) and you would have my full support. However, nobody seems to be able to come up with any answer other than 'I want to be able to stand, so you'll have to move'. Not much choice for me is there? Anyway, as the Brit is already near capacity, where would the people displaced by standing areas go, if they didn't want to stand? firstly, the obvious solution is to expand the ground and have that part as the standing area. To answer your question, if people had to move to accommodate the standing area, those people would be able to take the seats of those who moved to the standing area to the seated. After all, the introduction would probably not see a huge influx in attendances (maybe a small one) so the seats of most who move to the standing area would be open for others to take. You still haven't addresses the fact that 1, and no doubt thousands of others, sit where we do through choice, and we don't want to move. Why should we, just to accommodate people who want to stand. Giving them the choice removes OUR choice.
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jun 10, 2013 12:09:11 GMT
I have no problem with people having the choice to stand, but many of the solutions on here take away my choice to sit WHERE I WANT. Solve that problem for all the people who want to retain their current seat(because moving would inevitably be to a worse seat) and you would have my full support. However, nobody seems to be able to come up with any answer other than 'I want to be able to stand, so you'll have to move'. Not much choice for me is there? Anyway, as the Brit is already near capacity, where would the people displaced by standing areas go, if they didn't want to stand? Your argument is decidedly Nimby-ish. You don't mind if there's standing, as long as it's not your seat thats impacted. Boother-enders didn't have any choice when we moved grounds and the seat boys and old codgers starting snapping up all the tickets in the middle at the back of the new boothen, instead of sitting down the sides where seat boys belong. The problem with all seater stadia is they have killed the natural age driven flow of the crowd which you get with a terrace, start in the seats with your dad, then he takes you into the terrace, but you stay at the front, then he leaves you at the front on your own for a season or two, then you move to the back with your own mates, then you might move into the middle as the young pups start taking over the back, then when the old legs give way you bugger off to the paddock! That was the flow of things, always meant a boisterous core of youngsters in the middle at the back starting the atmosphere off. I would go back to standing in a hearbeat. Could finally get all the lads standing together again instead of being all over the ground, you can easily stand by whoever you choose to which will also help atmosphere. Also, nothing will ever replace the thrill of a terrace mental, a joy i haven't been able to experience since Ninian Park in the play off semi, now THAT is how you celebrate a goal!!!
|
|
|
Post by picklejar on Jun 10, 2013 12:15:21 GMT
Given that demand for terracing would likely outstrip demand, cant see why standing would / should be any cheaper than seating. Why not charge even more for the standing and cross subsidise seats in the family stand?
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jun 10, 2013 12:21:41 GMT
Given that demand for terracing would likely outstrip demand, cant see why standing would / should be any cheaper than seating. Why not charge even more for the standing and cross subsidise seats in the family stand? Very much doubt demand would outsrip supply if done on a large enough scale. Dortmunds terrace holds twice as many standing as it does seating, therefore there is no reason prices couldn't be reduced while still allowing the club to make more money than the do currently froma full house.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 10, 2013 12:21:48 GMT
Given that demand for terracing would likely outstrip demand, cant see why standing would / should be any cheaper than seating. Why not charge even more for the standing and cross subsidise seats in the family stand? Why not stop pissing about with safe standing campaigns and focus on getting the maximum ticket price down to a tenner? Let the Sky money be spread around the whole of the 'club'.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 12:22:38 GMT
Chorlton; so, it's Nimby-ish for me not to want to move, but not Nimby-ish of somebody to want me to move so they can stand. You couldn't make it up. We'll forget the absolute arrogance of saying where 'seat-boys' ought to go! And this 'age driven flow', what a complete tissue of made-up nonsense. I stood in more or less the same spot on the Boothen from 1970 to 1997, aged 19 to 46, as did my mates. I never felt the urge to move to the paddock or get a seat. When we moved to the Brit I used to sit somewhere round the halfway line, because it was a novelty, but when I got a season ticket, me and my mate deliberately chose the seats we have on the Boothen for the best view. I fail to see why my preference and that of many others, should be totally ignored so you can stand with your mates.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 12:27:40 GMT
Hollybush, every single supporters survey that I'm aware of has shown a substantial majority of favour of choice - even from among those who would themselves choose to continue to sit. You can see the results of many of them in Peter Caton's excellent book on this subject "Stand up; Sit Down" which you can get on Amazon for £6.89 www.amazon.co.uk/Stand-Up-Sit-Down-Football/dp/1780881770If you are interested in the standing debate, it's an excellent read for the beach this summer. It's the best coverage of all of the aspects of this debate that I know of. Did anybody tell the people in favour of choice that they might have to move to give the standers somewhere to stand? If that was mentioned, I imagine the result might have been somewhat different. I am really angered by this campaign, because no-one has the answer to what would you do for all the people who have deliberately chosen seats where they are and see no reason to relinquish them to make room for standing. If you can suggest a fair resolution of that matter, I might consider my support, but until someone guarantees that I won't lose my seat, you can forget it.
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jun 10, 2013 12:45:17 GMT
Chorlton; so, it's Nimby-ish for me not to want to move, but not Nimby-ish of somebody to want me to move so they can stand. You couldn't make it up. We'll forget the absolute arrogance of saying where 'seat-boys' ought to go! And this 'age driven flow', what a complete tissue of made-up nonsense. I stood in more or less the same spot on the Boothen from 1970 to 1997, aged 19 to 46, as did my mates. I never felt the urge to move to the paddock or get a seat. When we moved to the Brit I used to sit somewhere round the halfway line, because it was a novelty, but when I got a season ticket, me and my mate deliberately chose the seats we have on the Boothen for the best view. I fail to see why my preference and that of many others, should be totally ignored so you can stand with your mates. So,were t not for the Taylor report you'd still be standing on theBoothen now then, you wouldn't have moved to a seat, because you seem very fond of being sat down? It's a seat and it isn't yours by right, fans at many clubs get moved on a regular basis, for whatever reason, often much more frivolous reasons than the re-introduction of what many supporters believe to be far and away the best way to watch football. You'd have the choice to stand in exactly the same place should you so wish, and in a lot more comfort and safety than you did on the boothen. To answer your point in a slightly more serious vein though, I imagine that were push come to shove the club would have little option but to poll the impacted area of the ground or the full season ticket base prior to proceeding, and any large scale implementation would almost certainly be preceeded, you would imagine, by a terraced corner as a starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Coll40 on Jun 10, 2013 12:57:57 GMT
If they took the front 10 or 12 rows out of the Boothen, then lowered the floor of the standing area by about 15 inches, there would be no problem. The sight lines of those standing would be similar to what they are now and the lowered floor would ensure those in the seats still had a clear view
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Jun 10, 2013 13:01:05 GMT
Standing at Stoke ended 16 years ago, and I'm 16 years older, so no, I wouldn't be standing; I like sitting now, and I particularly like the view from my seat.
To paraphrase the great dead liberal Charlton Heston and his pals at the NRA, "I'll give you my seat when you take it from my cold, dead hands"
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jun 10, 2013 13:15:20 GMT
Standing at Stoke ended 16 years ago, and I'm 16 years older, so no, I wouldn't be standing; I like sitting now, and I particularly like the view from my seat. To paraphrase the great dead liberal Charlton Heston and his pals at the NRA, "I'll give you my seat when you take it from my cold, dead hands" What if theytry to coax you out with a pensioners annex in the seddon in a few years time? free boiled sweets and a complimetary flask of tomato soup........and a blanket, tempted?!!!
|
|