|
|
Post by modfather on Jul 28, 2017 5:40:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 5:53:36 GMT
Backward step (tin hat on). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 6:23:26 GMT
Backward step (tin hat on). Fences, pens and nazi police would be a backwards step. This would be a giant leap forwards. |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 6:26:26 GMT
Backward step (tin hat on). Fences, pens and nazi police would be a backwards step. This would be a giant leap forwards.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 6:35:00 GMT
Fences, pens and nazi police would be a backwards step. This would be a giant leap forwards. What's funny? |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 6:44:33 GMT
The giant leap forward bit, we've had standing since football was invented and other countries still do but I still think it's miles more comfortable sitting to watch than standing for hours on end, but you think what you like, I disagree! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 6:53:57 GMT
The giant leap forward bit, we've had standing since football was invented and other countries still do but I still think it's miles more comfortable sitting to watch than standing for hours on end, but you think what you like, I disagree! You'll still be able to sit in comfort though. In which case why would you view it as a step backwards that people who would rather stand would now have the option of doing so? |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 7:00:19 GMT
The giant leap forward bit, we've had standing since football was invented and other countries still do but I still think it's miles more comfortable sitting to watch than standing for hours on end, but you think what you like, I disagree! You'll still be able to sit in comfort though. In which case why would you view it as a step backwards that people who would rather stand would now have the option of doing so? I know it takes all sorts but I used to stand in the Boothen Paddock until I could afford to sit and I know which I prefer. I just do not see ANY advantage to stand at all so we can agree to disagree o.k? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jul 28, 2017 7:09:13 GMT
I can stand in front of my seat or I can sit on it.
Best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 7:09:23 GMT
You'll still be able to sit in comfort though. In which case why would you view it as a step backwards that people who would rather stand would now have the option of doing so? I know it takes all sorts but I used to stand in the Boothen Paddock until I could afford to sit and I know which I prefer. I just do not see ANY advantage to stand at all so we can agree to disagree o.k? No we can't agree to disagree because viewing the introduction of safe-standing as a step backwards purely because "I prefer to sit" is a terribly short-sighted and downright selfish argument. Ok you prefer to sit, as do many others, but I don't understand how you seem unable to take into consideration the millions of people that aren't you... It would be like a proposal to build a new motorway and you viewing it as a step backwards because "I don't drive". |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 28, 2017 7:10:26 GMT
You'll still be able to sit in comfort though. In which case why would you view it as a step backwards that people who would rather stand would now have the option of doing so? I know it takes all sorts but I used to stand in the Boothen Paddock until I could afford to sit and I know which I prefer. I just do not see ANY advantage to stand at all so we can agree to disagree o.k? What you are really saying is that there should be no room for individual preferences. If you want to sit at a football match then the rest of the crowd should also be required do the same - it is called a "dog in a manger attitude" and it is small minded. Perhaps you would like to reciprocate by only watching the TV channels that I like - that seems fair doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 28, 2017 7:19:22 GMT
I know it takes all sorts but I used to stand in the Boothen Paddock until I could afford to sit and I know which I prefer. I just do not see ANY advantage to stand at all so we can agree to disagree o.k? What you are really saying is that there should be no room for individual preferences. If you want to sit at a football match then the rest of the crowd should also be required do the same - it is called a "dog in a manger attitude" and it is small minded. Perhaps you would like to reciprocate by only watching the TV channels that I like - that seems fair doesn't it? It's no more selfish and small minded than those people who insist on standing throughout a game forcing those behind to do the same . I prefer to sit due to my bad knees but can't at away games |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 7:32:12 GMT
"According to MailOnline, Liverpool would be reluctant to agree to the scheme following the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989 and in which 96 fans died."
I totally understand Liverpool's stance, after all you'll never see their supporters standing at away games or in the Kop.
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 7:42:14 GMT
I know it takes all sorts but I used to stand in the Boothen Paddock until I could afford to sit and I know which I prefer. I just do not see ANY advantage to stand at all so we can agree to disagree o.k? No we can't agree to disagree because viewing the introduction of safe-standing as a step backwards purely because "I prefer to sit" is a terribly short-sighted and downright selfish argument. Ok you prefer to sit, as do many others, but I don't understand how you seem unable to take into consideration the millions of people that aren't you... It would be like a proposal to build a new motorway and you viewing it as a step backwards because "I don't drive". No, we have had standing before and there were very valid reasons to end it which I agree with. I also think that if you took the seats out to put these areas in there would be a massive outcry from the silent majority who sit in them. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 28, 2017 7:45:13 GMT
The giant leap forward bit, we've had standing since football was invented and other countries still do but I still think it's miles more comfortable sitting to watch than standing for hours on end, but you think what you like, I disagree! so you have a section of standing and section of seating? Not rocket science is it? |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 28, 2017 7:47:46 GMT
Keen to see some terracing return.
However will they bring back terrace prices?
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 28, 2017 7:50:12 GMT
Keen to see some terracing return. However will they bring back terrace prices? Why would they I doubt that numbers will increase |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 28, 2017 7:55:02 GMT
Keen to see some terracing return. However will they bring back terrace prices? Why would they I doubt that numbers will increase It would free up seats? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 28, 2017 8:02:08 GMT
Yep, would love to stand properly again at the match |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 28, 2017 8:09:29 GMT
No we can't agree to disagree because viewing the introduction of safe-standing as a step backwards purely because "I prefer to sit" is a terribly short-sighted and downright selfish argument. Ok you prefer to sit, as do many others, but I don't understand how you seem unable to take into consideration the millions of people that aren't you... It would be like a proposal to build a new motorway and you viewing it as a step backwards because "I don't drive". No, we have had standing before and there were very valid reasons to end it which I agree with. I also think that if you took the seats out to put these areas in there would be a massive outcry from the silent majority who sit in them. First - we have never had rail seating in England before. I struggle to see how having continuous rails along every row of seating in some sections of the stadium can be considered dangerous. There is no way a crush can build up when that section is in standing mode. Second, the opening post on this thread was about Spurs considering rail seating IN THEIR NEW STADIUM. Exactly how would people in seats be able to raise a massive outcry. No one has sat or stood in the stadium yet. Everyone who had a seat at White Hart Lane would be able to have a seat in the new stadium (which is about 20,000 greater capacity than the old one). Anyone who wanted to stand would be able to stand. Where is the scope for an outcry - exactly who is being disadvantaged? Third, standing sections would enable more fans to watch the game. In Germany some safe standing sections can hold up to 1.8 times the number of people seated. But let's be cautiois and allow a "safer" figure of 1.5 times. If the Spurs stadium has a capacity of 60K seated and they had 15,000 safe standing rail seats they could fit 22,500 standing fans in that area. So the new capacity in standing mode would be 67,500. Everyone's a winner, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 8:29:12 GMT
It's all hyperthetical anyway because Stoke won't do it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 28, 2017 8:31:05 GMT
It's all hyperthetical anyway because Stoke won't do it! How is Spurs considering safe standing hypothetical? That, in case you had forgotten, is the post you originally replied to and called it a backward step. And, I would expect that every club who do bring it in will offer it as an option for a percentage of away fans - including Stoke fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 8:31:35 GMT
It's all hyperthetical anyway because Stoke won't do it! When the legislation is changed and clubs start to roll it out, we won't be far behind. |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 8:40:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 28, 2017 8:45:29 GMT
How is Spurs considering safe standing hypothetical? That, in case you had forgotten, is the post you originally replied to and called it a backward step. And, I would expect that every club who do bring it in will offer it as an option for a percentage of away fans - including Stoke fans. Have they had permission to do it? Not yet - but I think there is a good chance they will get permission for a trial. West Brom may even beat them to it as they have applied for a trial as well and I think Villa are very interested. There have been no safety problems with Celtic's safe standing area introduced a year or two back. Scotland does not ban rail seating in its top 2 divisions like we do in England. Shrewsbury in the lower leagues are also planning to have a rail seated area so that will be a blueprint for a change in the law in England. link |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 28, 2017 8:48:23 GMT
Have they had permission to do it? Not yet - but I think there is a good chance they will get permission for a trial. West Brom may even beat them to it as they have applied for a trial as well and I think Villa are very interested. There have been no safety problems with Celtic's safe standing area introduced a year or two back. Scotland does not ban rail seating like we do in England. So the law will have to change first...enjoy the wait! cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2017/7/28/16053796/tottenham-hotspur-news-new-stadium-safe-standing-hardware-south-standPS It won't be the fans who change the law, it will have to go through Parliament and I'm sure that there will be opposition after what happened in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jul 28, 2017 8:56:16 GMT
It's all hyperthetical anyway because Stoke won't do it! When the legislation is changed and clubs start to roll it out, we won't be far behind. Brilliant long term planning. Build a new corner and fit it out with new seats. Surely we could have put safe standing infrastructure in and just not activated it. The reason they'll give when we want safe standing at our ground is that we'll wait until the new ones wear out until implementing. |
|
|
|
Post by stavangerpotter81 on Jul 28, 2017 9:00:14 GMT
When the legislation is changed and clubs start to roll it out, we won't be far behind. Brilliant long term planning. Build a new corner and fit it out with new seats. Surely we could have put safe standing infrastructure in and just not activated it. The reason they'll give when we want safe standing at our ground is that we'll wait until the new ones wear out until implementing. I think Dan is right, if the club can see a justification for increasing capacity through demand then it is the most econonmical solution to do so. At the end of the day it is all about revenue and if they can increase it they will. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 28, 2017 9:08:51 GMT
When the legislation is changed and clubs start to roll it out, we won't be far behind. Brilliant long term planning. Build a new corner and fit it out with new seats. Surely we could have put safe standing infrastructure in and just not activated it. The reason they'll give when we want safe standing at our ground is that we'll wait until the new ones wear out until implementing. I think the problem is that clubs are worried that the current legislation might be interpreted as preventing the installation of safe standing hardware in the top two divisions - even if it was not used. It is very noticeable that no club in the top two divisions has taken the risk. You'd need to look at how the law is worded to judge the chances of being prosecuted for simply putting the hardware in place. All Premier League and Championship clubs have been asked by the Premier League and EFL for their stance on the matter. I'm pretty optimistic that there will be trials sooner rather than later. We haven't really missed the boat - yet! We still have to install new seats in the main stand and we could, for example, take the new seats out of the new corner and reinstall them in the main stand and put a safe standing trail in the new corner. |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Jul 28, 2017 9:10:42 GMT
Brilliant long term planning. Build a new corner and fit it out with new seats. Surely we could have put safe standing infrastructure in and just not activated it. The reason they'll give when we want safe standing at our ground is that we'll wait until the new ones wear out until implementing. I think Dan is right, if the club can see a justification for increasing capacity through demand then it is the most econonmical solution to do so. At the end of the day it is all about revenue and if they can increase it they will. Does it increase capacity though? I thought it was the same number as you have to be able to convert them back to seats. |
|
