|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Oct 7, 2021 15:08:01 GMT
Start of next season this will be green lighted all over the country, no doubt. There will also be tenders out for architects and builders and a wait for architects designs never mind needing planning permission for the alterations and that sort of delay, plus getting supporters approval and starting a scramble for fans seating arrangements if their seats are ripped out. I reckon at least another 2 or 3 seasons before it's even started! Might as well build a a new 50k seater/safe standing stadium for our Champions League adventures I’ll have an ounce of what you’re on 🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 7, 2021 16:06:47 GMT
I wrote to Tony Scholes on the 23/09 and to be fair he responded on the 27th; it was a weak response though & this thread has again reminded me to reply. The response was : "In relation to the Safe-Standing trial commencing January 2022, we will certainly be keeping abreast of developments. We note that the current guidance already includes a number of changes from previous versions (including in respect of rail-type seating). We intend to monitor the results at stadia that elect and are chosen to take part in the further trials and in particular will consider any further operational challenges that emerge. We will then consider our position as a club, which at that stage will include and be informed by consultation with supporters." I'll try and find some time to reply today & let's see if they give anything further. Enough supporter push and perhaps they might make a slight move. The council will inevitably accept the weak response they were given and move on, pointless hoping they push it - no disrespect at all meant there, just the truth. If more individuals/group push the club directly here then the chance of fan consultation sooner might just happen. Just to clarify, the SGSA are clear that it is not a "trial". They use the phrase "early adopters", which I think reveals their view of it. There is every indication that it will get the go-ahead for all clubs next August. I will respond in more detail on the technical and legal position. In my view there is no reason why consultation could not start now.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 13, 2021 10:18:29 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 10:28:34 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to. I wouldn't trust the Supporters Council to run a bath, let alone try persuade the club into thinking this is what a large majority of us want at the Brit.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 13, 2021 10:36:03 GMT
Malcolm how do you think we are best even talking to the club about this? I have been in correspondence with the Club about the technical and legal issues which I've outlined above. The Supporters' Council is obviously an appropraite forum, and I hope the Council will push the club to undertake a structured consultation on it. It shouldn't just be the views of the individuals who are on the Council, or those who send in their views or post them on social media. As I stated above, if the Club or the Council don't do it, someone else may have to, although it would be much better for the Club to do it, as they have the database of supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 13, 2021 10:44:27 GMT
I wrote to Tony Scholes on the 23/09 and to be fair he responded on the 27th; it was a weak response though & this thread has again reminded me to reply. The response was : "In relation to the Safe-Standing trial commencing January 2022, we will certainly be keeping abreast of developments. We note that the current guidance already includes a number of changes from previous versions (including in respect of rail-type seating). We intend to monitor the results at stadia that elect and are chosen to take part in the further trials and in particular will consider any further operational challenges that emerge. We will then consider our position as a club, which at that stage will include and be informed by consultation with supporters." I'll try and find some time to reply today & let's see if they give anything further. Enough supporter push and perhaps they might make a slight move. The council will inevitably accept the weak response they were given and move on, pointless hoping they push it - no disrespect at all meant there, just the truth. If more individuals/group push the club directly here then the chance of fan consultation sooner might just happen. See my comments above. The SGSA do not regard the current applications as "trials" which is a word used by some parts of the media, not the SGSA who refer to "early adopters" which gives a good indication of the firm direction of travel. I agree with you that there is no reason why the fan consultation shouldn't take place between now and next summer. It wouldn't commit the Club to anything.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 13, 2021 13:13:53 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to. I wouldn't trust the Supporters Council to run a bath, let alone try persuade the club into thinking this is what a large majority of us want at the Brit. What makes you think there’s a large majority in favour of the proposed safe standing There’s some who whilst want standing like me don’t want this sanitized there’s your place your mate is five seats to the left three rows down compromise
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 13, 2021 13:45:42 GMT
I wouldn't trust the Supporters Council to run a bath, let alone try persuade the club into thinking this is what a large majority of us want at the Brit. What makes you think there’s a large majority in favour of the proposed safe standing There’s some who whilst want standing like me don’t want this sanitized there’s your place your mate is five seats to the left three rows down compromise It is important not to confuse what you would want, or would accept, for yourself, with offering choice for others. Personally I struggle to understand why anyone who perfers to sit, wouldn't support it, because it reduces or eliminates the possibility of your view being blocked by someone standing, a particular problem at some away games. I come into that category. I am now at the age where I would probably choose to sit, even if ( when ! ) standing is re-introduced but I certainly support others having the option to stand.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 13, 2021 14:03:39 GMT
What makes you think there’s a large majority in favour of the proposed safe standing There’s some who whilst want standing like me don’t want this sanitized there’s your place your mate is five seats to the left three rows down compromise It is important not to confuse what you would want, or would accept, for yourself, with offering choice for others. Personally I struggle to understand why anyone who perfers to sit, wouldn't support it, because it reduces or eliminates the possibility of your view being blocked by someone standing, a particular problem at some away games. I come into that category. I am now at the age where I would probably choose to sit, even if ( when ! ) standing is re-introduced but I certainly support others having the option to stand. I totally agree it’s not just what I want but I would suggest there’s quite a few in favour of standing who don’t want the current style of safe standing on offer and want a no defined place so they can stand with mates There’s then the ones who are quite happy with the new safe standing options Those who are happy with it And those who to me foolishly think it’s a start and then they’ll get the option above And then you will have those who through health / age or are just happy to be seated All to me are valid points that all warrant the same considerations I’m just glad it’s not me who has the final choice All I was trying to point out is not everyone in favour of standing wants the sanitised version on offer
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2021 14:06:52 GMT
I wouldn't trust the Supporters Council to run a bath, let alone try persuade the club into thinking this is what a large majority of us want at the Brit. What makes you think there’s a large majority in favour of the proposed safe standing There’s some who whilst want standing like me don’t want this sanitized there’s your place your mate is five seats to the left three rows down compromise There is. That's a fact. Plus it wouldn't be the whole ground that would have them installed. You'd still have stands where you can sit.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 13, 2021 14:15:43 GMT
It is important not to confuse what you would want, or would accept, for yourself, with offering choice for others. Personally I struggle to understand why anyone who perfers to sit, wouldn't support it, because it reduces or eliminates the possibility of your view being blocked by someone standing, a particular problem at some away games. I come into that category. I am now at the age where I would probably choose to sit, even if ( when ! ) standing is re-introduced but I certainly support others having the option to stand. I totally agree it’s not just what I want but I would suggest there’s quite a few in favour of standing who don’t want the current style of safe standing on offer and want a no defined place so they can stand with mates There’s then the ones who are quite happy with the new safe standing options Those who are happy with it And those who to me foolishly think it’s a start and then they’ll get the option above And then you will have those who through health / age or are just happy to be seated All to me are valid points that all warrant the same considerations I’m just glad it’s not me who has the final choice All I was trying to point out is not everyone in favour of standing wants the sanitised version on offer I think that in practice movement could occur Waga, just as I understand it does at Celtic Park, even if tickets are sold for an allocated place, but that's obviosuly not an official answer. From a safety perspective, the rail prevents forward surges and the numbers limit prevents unsafe overcrowding.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Oct 14, 2021 13:48:20 GMT
Malcolm, given how unsafe standing in seating areas is, has any research work ever been done on just putting barriers/rails into existing seated areas.
We've already got seats, we've already got standing, just not safely.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 14, 2021 14:40:20 GMT
Malcolm, given how unsafe standing in seating areas is, has any research work ever been done on just putting barriers/rails into existing seated areas. We've already got seats, we've already got standing, just not safely. That's a very good question, and an obvious suggestion. I'm not a technical expert and I think it is a question of dimensions, where the rail would be anchored etc. But I think it's highly likely that some clubs will look at that as a possible solution. The key question will be whether they can satisfy SGSA specifications.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 14, 2021 14:55:40 GMT
As an old person, I think standing is a problem at away games as folk tend to fall over the seats into other supporters. If you are old then a 20 stone human falling on you is going to cause a problem.
Football needs to enforce the seating rule or look at safe standing for those who wish to.
I prefer to sit with my tartan rug with like minded people around me - well away from those standing.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Oct 14, 2021 15:49:23 GMT
As an old person, I think standing is a problem at away games as folk tend to fall over the seats into other supporters. If you are old then a 20 stone human falling on you is going to cause a problem. Football needs to enforce the seating rule or look at safe standing for those who wish to. I prefer to sit with my tartan rug with like minded people around me - well away from those standing. It’ll be interesting to see how things develop…. What if, let’s say, a club is given an away allocation of 2,000 tickets, and it’s split 50/50 between rail seating / traditional seats. Some people that want to stand can’t get the appropriate ticket, so they buy a ‘sitting’ ticket and decide to stand anyway. It’ll need strong enforcement by the clubs to ensure that those who want to sit without their view being impeded can do so.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 14, 2021 17:54:14 GMT
As an old person, I think standing is a problem at away games as folk tend to fall over the seats into other supporters. If you are old then a 20 stone human falling on you is going to cause a problem. Football needs to enforce the seating rule or look at safe standing for those who wish to. I prefer to sit with my tartan rug with like minded people around me - well away from those standing. It’ll be interesting to see how things develop…. What if, let’s say, a club is given an away allocation of 2,000 tickets, and it’s split 50/50 between rail seating / traditional seats. Some people that want to stand can’t get the appropriate ticket, so they buy a ‘sitting’ ticket and decide to stand anyway. It’ll need strong enforcement by the clubs to ensure that those who want to sit without their view being impeded can do so. Very true, mate.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Oct 16, 2021 7:23:29 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to. Surely a consultation can happen at any stage in the process anyway as you suggest Malcolm. The club could literally ask the supporter base any questions they want to at any time. So that it is a fair reflection of regular support it needs to cover all ages and demographics and organising that should have started immediately. Designing a fair consultation process could have started immediately. Coming up with the questions and format could have started immediately as could group meetings. The supporter's Council can do this without any club involvement whatsoever if they wished although it would obviously be preferable as a collaboration. The club could inform this by investigating costs and design issues to present to fans immediately. All the safe standing I've been to involves a modular seat/rail assembly that may or may not be compatible with current space constraints. We also shouldn't forget the away support at bet365 either who if not addressed can impact policing and safety as you say. Frankly the opinions of other clubs fans and their ground issues are not very helpful anyway. Waiting makes no sense whatsoever. By the time we get any data together it will be 2023 and we will be behind the curve. My immediate thoughts are the club doesn't have the appetite, which is why they are dragging their heels.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 16, 2021 8:16:14 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to. Surely a consultation can happen at any stage in the process anyway as you suggest Malcolm. The club could literally ask the supporter base any questions they want to at any time. So that it is a fair reflection of regular support it needs to cover all ages and demographics and organising that should have started immediately. Designing a fair consultation process could have started immediately. Coming up with the questions and format could have started immediately as could group meetings. The supporter's Council can do this without any club involvement whatsoever if they wished although it would obviously be preferable as a collaboration. The club could inform this by investigating costs and design issues to present to fans immediately. All the safe standing I've been to involves a modular seat/rail assembly that may or may not be compatible with current space constraints. We also shouldn't forget the away support at bet365 either who if not addressed can impact policing and safety as you say. Frankly the opinions of other clubs fans and their ground issues are not very helpful anyway. Waiting makes no sense whatsoever. By the time we get any data together it will be 2023 and we will be behind the curve. My immediate thoughts are the club doesn't have the appetite, which is why they are dragging their heels. I agree with all of that, Andy. The issues of principle - does the Club and its supporters wish to consider it at all - and location - if so, where in the ground - are not affected by the technical specification issues and, as you say, consultation on those could start at any time. I think you are also right that it would need to be a well thought out and properly structured consultation, which is an argument for starting the process sooner rather than later. I hope your last sentence is not true, but the evidence suggests it might be.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 16, 2021 8:49:00 GMT
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. Despite some parts of the media using the term, the SGSA are clear that the approvals given are not "trials", hence their use of the term "early adopters". Whilst of course regulations can always be 'tweaked' in the light of experience ( as they can, and are, with any other aspect of ground regulations) there is every indication that the SGSA will authorise all clubs covered by the legislation to apply to operate safe standing areas from August 2022. I don't think there will be any "results" from the "early adopters" for Stoke City to monitor. The political context is that allowing standing is now official Government policy which they will implement in the short term by repealing the individual all-seater orders for participating grounds which are placed before Parliament and issuing them with a new licence which says, in effect, the all-seater policy remains in place except in specific areas designated for standing. In the longer term, they may look at repealing the relevant parts of the Football Spectators Act, but that of course would involve Primary legislation. In my view there is no reason why the Club should not commence fan consultation right away, in preparation for the time when it will be allowed to apply to install rail seats, which is likely to be from next summer. The early adopters will not yield any further information which would be relevant to that consultation. Such consultation would not of course commit the Club to anything. If the Club don't do it, someone else might have to, which could be the Supporters Council, or the Supporters Club/FSA. It would need to be a properfly designed consultation, not just offering people the chance to send in their views. As I said above this is of course not just an issue for the Bet 365 stadium. Despite the best efforts of the ticket office to separate the standers from the sitters, there are still problems at some of our away games of fans who don't want to, or can't, stand having their view blocked by fans standing, and some fans have stopped going to away games for that reason. If we want other clubs to address that, we are not in a strong position if we won't consider it at the Bet 365 stadium. The whole of the WBA support was standing but I doubt whether they all wanted to. I wouldn't trust the Supporters Council to run a bath, let alone try persuade the club into thinking this is what a large majority of us want at the Brit. I think you shouldn't beat around the bush but just say what you think, Drew . I don't want to attack those who give up their time to voluntarily sit on the Council, who I respect for taking on that role. But the problem I have is that on this issue and others it should be more than just a post office where issues raised by fans are communicated to the club and the response is communicated back, and the Council take at face value the information provided by the Club, which may itself not be aware of the all the relevant information. The information on technical specifications, the legals and the approach of the SGSA which I have given in this thread is not secret but it does require doing some homework, which the Council could do just as well, maybe better, than I can. On this issue it does not appear that the Council asked the Club to do anything but just posed a question and conveyed back the answer. In fact I wrote separately to the Club about the issue, and to be fair to them in response they did ask me for further information covering some of these issues which I have now provided.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 18, 2021 14:54:07 GMT
The issue was well illustrated at Bramhall Lane. The ticket office advise those who want to sit to get seats near the front, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't define 'near the front' and those who want to stand aren't told not to go near the front, however defined. On Saturday some fans were standing as far forward as the 2nd row, which did cause some problems for other fans, who didn't want to, or couldn't stand. I was speaking to one of our more mature fans, who told me of problems she has had at other grounds this season. The long term solution has to be proper separation of the would-be standers from the sitters. In the meantime, it would be helpful if the ticket office were a little more precise about where the sitters should buy tickets, and telling everyoine that if you have got a ticket in those areas, you must sit.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 18, 2021 14:56:44 GMT
Surely it needs the stewards and police to enforce the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2021 15:04:25 GMT
Surely it needs the stewards and police to enforce the rules? Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 18, 2021 15:08:41 GMT
Surely it needs the stewards and police to enforce the rules? Good luck with that. Indeed but if that’s what it needs then crack on. The logic behind people won’t follow the rules so change the rules doesn’t seem to be a great logic for me.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 18, 2021 15:44:20 GMT
Indeed but if that’s what it needs then crack on. The logic behind people won’t follow the rules so change the rules doesn’t seem to be a great logic for me. I think it would have been quite impossible to get all the Stoke support sitting down on Saturday, which is what the ground regulations theoretically require. If as I suggested there was more precision about where "towards the front" ends, it might be a bit easier. As I'm sure you know, the logic and evidence behind the arguments for changing the law/rules is far wider than simply that people won't follow them.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2021 10:15:00 GMT
The article below from yesterday's Times is a pretty good summary of the current position. As it is behind their paywall, I've cut and pasted rather than provide the link.
January 1 will herald a historic moment for English football: after more than 25 years, fans are set to be legally allowed to stand at four grounds in the Premier League and one in the Championship. Experts in “safe-standing” are expecting a rush in the summer from other clubs in England’s top two divisions to install “rail seats” that will allow supporters to legally stand at their matches too.
Anyone who goes to matches in England’s top two divisions knows that despite the abolition of terraces in 1995, many supporters already choose to stand in front of their seats in large numbers, which campaigners have long argued is more dangerous than licensed safe-standing.
What will be different at the five clubs that have applied to be “early adopters” of safe-standing — who The Times has learnt are Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and Cardiff City — is that they will have specific areas where not only are fans allowed to stand, but they will also have the necessary protections in place with barriers or rails to prevent “progressive crowd collapse”.
The five clubs have committed to providing safe-standing for home and away fans. The numbers vary but at Tottenham’s new stadium there should be licensed standing for more than 10,000 supporters, including 7,000 in the South Stand.
Jon Darch, who has run the Safe-Standing Roadshow and has campaigned for the Football Supporters’ Association, said: “Quite a few more clubs have it on the radar for next summer. I would expect to see a number of clubs doing some kind of safe-standing installation next summer.”
Wolverhampton Wanderers have some rail seating and initially applied to be an early adopter but withdrew their application due to the requirements for away fans. West Ham United also have some rail seating, while Arsenal are already in talks with supporters about making a safe-standing provision for next season.
The criteria for safe-standing in English football has been drawn up by Ken Scott, the head of inspectorate for the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA), which will confirm the names of the clubs who have applied next week.
It appears almost certain that all five will be approved, but Scott has been keen to stress that even where space allows, only one standing fan for one seated fan will be permitted, though he accepts that that situation may change in the future.
“I am still nervous about the pressure we will inevitably get for more than one seated position for one standing position because it happens in Europe,” he told The Times. “We know that Germany for instance goes for 1.8 standing per one seated but we are very careful that we move ahead with this at a cautious pace because I want this thing to work. I don’t want it to blow up in our faces. It closes the door initially to more than one for one but these things can be reviewed in the future.”
Darch agrees that is the best approach, adding: “The last thing anyone wants to see is the squeezing in of extra fans.”
The SGSA’s criteria says that every standing fan needs a space of 0.2m² per person, which limits the numbers permitted, especially in the older stadiums. Tottenham’s purpose-built safe-standing areas could accommodate more standing and still comply with the space criteria but Scott said the club is not pushing for that.
“You could push it beyond that — in some of the modern stadiums you could probably get beyond one for one — but Spurs are not interested in that for the minute,” he added. “It may be that we can evaluate that at the end of the season. Hopefully, depending on the government’s decision, it will lead to a wider roll-out at the end of the season.”
In the longer term, Scott envisages a system where clubs increase safe-standing areas on a step-by-step basis, until they cater for all those who want to stand throughout a match, but leave areas in front for those who choose to sit or who must sit.
“If you take as an example the Kop at Liverpool, where there are many thousands of people standing, I’m a firm believer that lots of people are standing because they have got no choice if they want to see what’s happening.
“What I am keen to do — and I have discussed this with all the clubs who have installed the seats with rails or barriers — is address the risks as soon as we can.
“We have to do it by increment, with say a couple of thousand seats with rails at the back, and increase it until we reach the tipping point between those that want to stand and those that want to sit.
“Most of the venues will not have enough to meet the demand so these are works in progress.
“I think this will satisfy lots of customer care issues too. I’m a Sunderland fan and I know, if I want to watch them away, I will need to stand for 90 minutes and lots of people can’t do that.”
In years to come, clubs in England and Wales may reflect the set-up in Germany, with a third of a stadium given over to safe-standing — for example, Borussia Dortmund’s stadium has 53,675 seats and 27,589 safe-standing places.
“This is a historic moment but we don’t want to push it to extremes,” Scott said. “This is safe-standing — licensed standing in an area and not a return to terracing. That is a really significant point.”
How will safe-standing work? Safe-standing areas have seats incorporating rails or barriers. These seats should flip up automatically so that if no one is sitting on them they are in an upright position.
What is the timetable for this development? Five clubs who have applied to be “early adopters” should be licensed for safe-standing areas from January 1, with legislation changed to allow other clubs in England’s top two divisions to have similar areas from next summer onwards.
Can the seats be locked in an upright position? Not in England and Wales; they have to be able to flip down if the fan wants to sit. The seats can be locked upright and down in Scotland, which has different legislation and where Celtic have that kind of rail seat installed. That does allow more space for standing but at least one manufacturer now has a flip-seat which is completely concealed in the frame.
Why should there be seats at all if it is safe for standing? Some competition organisers such as Uefa and Fifa require all-seat stadiums for their competitions. The British government would almost certainly not have entertained changing legislation around safe-standing unless seats remained an option.
How much does it cost to install seats with barriers or rails? The cheapest versions start at £60 to £90 per seat but the more comfortable the seat, the more the price rises.
Is there a risk that old stadiums could actually have a smaller capacity for standing fans than seats in the same area? Potentially — although old stadiums can have very narrow spaces between the seats and there have been situations where if everyone stands then people spill out into the aisles. Ken Scott of the Sports Ground Safety Authority says that would affect capacity — but that of those clubs who have applied for safe-standing areas in January those issues have already been sorted out, so capacity will remain one standing fan per seat.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2021 10:25:19 GMT
I should have added that it does of course mean that those Stokies who want to will be able to use the safe standing area at Cardfiff when we go on 16th March
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Nov 2, 2021 10:41:25 GMT
If in the future its goes to more fans standing than physical seats how will the concourses cope. Its just about legal limit for the current capacity of one fan per seat at our place. Extra fans will be a disaster, and this wouldn't be our ground, i can think of several other grounds that are very restrictive.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Nov 2, 2021 11:20:47 GMT
If in the future its goes to more fans standing than physical seats how will the concourses cope. Its just about legal limit for the current capacity of one fan per seat at our place. Extra fans will be a disaster, and this wouldn't be our ground, i can think of several other grounds that are very restrictive. Malcolm mentioned earlier in the thread, Safe standing areas require the neccessary concourse size to fit so the concourses will have to be changed if they're not big enough.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2021 11:53:02 GMT
Hopefully Malcolm Clarke will appear on this thread to give us the latest info on when and where this is likely to happen first and how soon the experiment will become the norm. Didn't he mention it a few weeks ago Fornie that something was being brought up in the near future? Not a fan of standing personally as too many tall and fat people go to football and I end up looking at someone's back for 90 mins...sometimes a good thing , but be nice to see it back for those who do .
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 2, 2021 16:17:07 GMT
Hopefully Malcolm Clarke will appear on this thread to give us the latest info on when and where this is likely to happen first and how soon the experiment will become the norm. Didn't he mention it a few weeks ago Fornie that something was being brought up in the near future? Not a fan of standing personally as too many tall and fat people go to football and I end up looking at someone's back for 90 mins...sometimes a good thing , but be nice to see it back for those who do . See the Times article I posted earlier today - 5 clubs including Cardfiff approved from January. Likely to be many more approved from next summer.
|
|