Safe-standing areas - TIME FOR ACTION

[66DD]

How can you be so certain? Do you speak for all the people? I know it is possible to convince people and change their opinion if you invest the time and give them facts and reasoned arguments.

Age, experience and scepticism and I speak for no one. I admire your naivety in believing that facts and reasoned arguments can change opinion.

[Svlad Cjelli]

How can you be so certain? Do you speak for all the people? I know it is possible to convince people and change their opinion if you invest the time and give them facts and reasoned arguments.

Age, experience and scepticism and I speak for no one. I admire your naivety in believing that facts and reasoned arguments can change opinion.

Thanks for the abuse, but I prefer to rely on my personal experience of using facts and reasoned arguments to change opinion. I know it works because I've done it numerous times.

[ruprecht]

I fail to understand the fascination for a return to the delapidated stadia, yobbism, violence, crowd surges, crush injuries and being herded like cattle of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s

Spot on. Thats exactly what everyone involved in this campaign is hankering for. If a safe standing area is ever implemented at the Madejski I for one can't wait to sharpen some pound coins and smear shit on the walls.

[handbags_harris]

I fail to understand the fascination for a return to the delapidated stadia, yobbism, violence, crowd surges, crush injuries and being herded like cattle of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s

Spot on. Thats exactly what everyone involved in this campaign is hankering for. If a safe standing area is ever implemented at the Madejski I for one can't wait to sharpen some pound coins and smear shit on the walls.

Really?

[West Stand Man]

Ermmm, I'd suggest you read this thread and take note of the number of times it states that this is categorically not about a return to the large-scale terraces of the past.

Also I'd suggest you look at the numerous pictures posted on this thread whcih show safe-standing areas, all of them quite different from the large-scale terraces of the past.

I have read this thread and I have looked at the pictures and I am familiar with the FSF's campaign. I fully aware that safe standing is possible; but that doesn't matter how many times that you write it or how many times that you show the pictures you will not convince people that this is not about a return to the bad old days.

How can you be so certain? Do you speak for all the people? I know it is possible to convince people and change their opinion if you invest the time and give them facts and reasoned arguments.

So what 'facts' and reasoned arguments do you have to support the campaign ? I have seen a lot of opinion and conjecture but nothing that shows that standing is safe. The trouble is, as I said above, there is a lot of negative evidence to show that there has been no trouble on the new standing areas but that is not conclusive proof. The old terracing was ok until fans rioted or fought. And therein lies the issue at the moment. It is a perception on one side that standing in football stadiums in potentially unsafe, and a perception on the other side that it is safe. Reasoned arguments are unlikely to sway the perceptions, and there is really no hard evidence to help the cause. If such evidence comes about then maybe this campaign has a possibility of success.

As toi the insults flying from one side to the other on this, the truth is that it does polarise fans. Many of us grew up on terracing and longed to get into an all seater stadium. We did not have such a fairytale view of the apparent beauties of standing for a long time, often behind someone much taller and who effectively restricted our view. One of the unforeseen effects of having standing is that fans tended to arrive late for games in order (I would propose) to reduce the time spent standing. Now that you know your legs will be rested for most of the 90 minutes there is a tendency to arrive earlier and hence reduce the last minute rush to get in. Just a perception, but as I have said, this is all about perceptions.

I have no problems with you wanting to stand, or with you wanting to campaign for it to happen. I do think it is an unlikely thing to come about in the near to medium future though.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I fail to understand the fascination for a return to the delapidated stadia, yobbism, violence, crowd surges, crush injuries and being herded like cattle of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
.

who wants any of that back?

Seriously, look at the pictures of terraces posted on this thread. Did any of them look dilapidated to you? Do you think if Y25/26 were made into terraces, the people there would suddenly mutate into raging hooligans because they'd be standing up?

And what has police herding fans like cattle in the past got to do with terraces?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

So what 'facts' and reasoned arguments do you have to support the campaign ? I have seen a lot of opinion and conjecture but nothing that shows that standing is safe. The trouble is, as I said above, there is a lot of negative evidence to show that there has been no trouble on the new standing areas but that is not conclusive proof.

The old terracing was ok until fans rioted or fought.

There is no conclusive proof that seating is safe either. You cannot ever prove a negative.

Events such as the crowd trouble at the Birmingham v Villa match recently also showed that seats are not the cure for crowd trouble that many like to believe they are.

And therein lies the issue at the moment. It is a perception on one side that standing in football stadiums in potentially unsafe, and a perception on the other side that it is safe. Reasoned arguments are unlikely to sway the perceptions, and there is really no hard evidence to help the cause. If such evidence comes about then maybe this campaign has a possibility of success.

Reasoned arguments are actually likely to sway people, as long as they are listening. Getting them to listen is the major battle.

The FLA's arguments against terracing, or even standing in seating areas, were generally terrible, and could be shot down quite easily, but MPs need to hear those arguments being shot down.

Many of us grew up on terracing and longed to get into an all seater stadium. We did not have such a fairytale view of the apparent beauties of standing for a long time, often behind someone much taller and who effectively restricted our view. One of the unforeseen effects of having standing is that fans tended to arrive late for games in order (I would propose) to reduce the time spent standing. Now that you know your legs will be rested for most of the 90 minutes there is a tendency to arrive earlier and hence reduce the last minute rush to get in. Just a perception, but as I have said, this is all about perceptions.

I think you are perhaps confusing your own personal preference with a general consensus. I don't recall any enthusiasm at all for all-seater stadiums from supporters.

Beyond small children, and people of middle age and beyond, people don't typically find standing up tiring. People got to Elm Park later because the ground was more conveniently located for many, and there was little need or incentive to get there earlier. You couldn't go in a 1:30 and have a couple of beers, for example.

[West Stand Man]

You are absolutely correct in asserting that there is no conclusive proof that seating is safe. However, the situation is that the campaign is to move away from seating and so there is no need for seated stadiums to prove anything at the moment. If there is to be a return to standing then there is a need to justify it. For clubs who have a need to increase capacity there is a reasonable commercial justification but, as already discussed, that doesn't apply to RFC at the moment (though it could do if we were promoted again).

All I can say about the aspirational element of my last post is that many people around me did hanker after a seat. The general view around me was that we were in the terraces because a. we couldn't afford the seats and; b. there weren't enough seats anyway. Oh, and I was a teenager at the time.

I have been accused of localising this and I charge you with the same crime. The fact that you couldn't get a beer in EP is not relevant as there were many other stadiums around which had bars in or very near to them. The truth is that footy fans got used to turning up late - for whatever reason and that now they tend to arrive earlier; I accept that there might be many factors driving that.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

You are absolutely correct in asserting that there is no conclusive proof that seating is safe. However, the situation is that the campaign is to move away from seating and so there is no need for seated stadiums to prove anything at the moment. If there is to be a return to standing then there is a need to justify it.

It is impossible to prove anything is safe. The nearest would be to provide records of injuries in terraced areas and contrast with seated areas.

All that can be done is to rationally point out where and why the FLA's belief that terracing (or safe standing) is flawed, and point to modern examples of terracing, dismissing the assumption that people want to return to the conditions of the 1980s and before.

And the campaign isn't about moving away from seating. I've no idea why so many who want to sit seem to believe introducing terraces will mean they'll have to stand.

For clubs who have a need to increase capacity there is a reasonable commercial justification but, as already discussed, that doesn't apply to RFC at the moment (though it could do if we were promoted again).

That's an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with whether clubs should be allowed to build terraces or not.

All I can say about the aspirational element of my last post is that many people around me did hanker after a seat. The general view around me was that we were in the terraces because a. we couldn't afford the seats and; b. there weren't enough seats anyway. Oh, and I was a teenager at the time.

I can only guess you had very strange friends if you and your peers were teenagers who wished they could be sat in the North Stand.

I have been accused of localising this and I charge you with the same crime. The fact that you couldn't get a beer in EP is not relevant as there were many other stadiums around which had bars in or very near to them. The truth is that footy fans got used to turning up late - for whatever reason and that now they tend to arrive earlier; I accept that there might be many factors driving that.

Elm Park was also a lot easier to get to. Many fans would have walked to the ground, which very few do now. You could turn up relatively late and park fairly close to the ground. There just wasn't any need to get there early, and not much to gain from doing so.

I also don't see the relevence. I see no reason to suspect that if terracing was brought back then people would turn up later than they do now.

[Svlad Cjelli]

So what 'facts' and reasoned arguments do you have to support the campaign ? I have seen a lot of opinion and conjecture but nothing that shows that standing is safe. The trouble is, as I said above, there is a lot of negative evidence to show that there has been no trouble on the new standing areas but that is not conclusive proof. The old terracing was ok until fans rioted or fought. And therein lies the issue at the moment. It is a perception on one side that standing in football stadiums in potentially unsafe, and a perception on the other side that it is safe. Reasoned arguments are unlikely to sway the perceptions, and there is really no hard evidence to help the cause. If such evidence comes about then maybe this campaign has a possibility of success.

It is a fact that not only have the FLA's accident statistics been proven to be invalid, the FLA now acknowledge that there is no difference in the levels of safety between standing and seated accomodation. As these discredited FLA statistics are the main plank of the argument and the underlying assumption for many MPs, this is a significant point which can be easily communicated to them and will introduce some objectivity into thier thinking. the reason that I know this works is that I have personally had this conversation with a number of MPs.

As to the insults flying from one side to the other on this, the truth is that it does polarise fans. Many of us grew up on terracing and longed to get into an all seater stadium. We did not have such a fairytale view of the apparent beauties of standing for a long time, often behind someone much taller and who effectively restricted our view. One of the unforeseen effects of having standing is that fans tended to arrive late for games in order (I would propose) to reduce the time spent standing. Now that you know your legs will be rested for most of the 90 minutes there is a tendency to arrive earlier and hence reduce the last minute rush to get in. Just a perception, but as I have said, this is all about perceptions.

I'd say that exactly the opposite applies. The majority of supporters now actually take their places in grounds much later than they used to in standing areas, since in many terraces to get a good place you needed to be in position at about 1.30. (Incidentally, this lack of pre-match crowd is one reason cited by many for a decline in singing and atmosphere build-up.) But this whole point is irrelevant, since we’re talking about safe-standing areas with allocated places for supporters.

I have no problems with you wanting to stand, or with you wanting to campaign for it to happen. I do think it is an unlikely thing to come about in the near to medium future though.

You’re making an assumption about me there - in fact, I prefer to sit at most matches – I’m campaigning for choice, for everyone.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I'd say that exactly the opposite applies. The majority of supporters now actually take their places in grounds much later than they used to in standing areas, since in many terraces to get a good place you needed to be in position at about 1.30.

At Elm Park the ground didn't even open until 1.30. I used to arrive shortly after 2, and it was still always distinctly empty. It only really began filling up after 2:30. People would tend to arrive a little earlier when high crowds were expected, mainly because the queues were pretty bad.

Unless something approaching a full house was expected, there was rarely much bother getting a decent spot on the terrace.

(Incidentally, this lack of pre-match crowd is one reason cited by many for a decline in singing and atmosphere build-up.)

The crowds arrive earlier now. The difference is that now they stand about in the concourse eating and drinking, whereas before they used to invariably go straight from turnstile to terrace.

But this whole point is irrelevant, since we’re talking about safe-standing areas with allocated places for supporters.

I think that's something that's muddying the waters slightly, as people, on this thread at least, are proposing different things.

I, for one, want to see a return to actual terraces rather than the watered down compromise of being allowed to stand in seated areas. The latter (assuming the "handrail" type seats are installed) are more likely to be put in place in exisiting new stands though.

It depends on whether the "tactics" would be to use safe standing as the thin end of the wedge to move towards proper terraces, or to go for terraces, with safe-standing being the fall-back position.

[weybridgewanderer]

The crowds arrive earlier now. The difference is that now they stand about in the concourse eating and drinking, whereas before they used to invariably go straight from turnstile to terrace.

basically coz there was no such thing as a concourse

so is the real problem all this "no drinking within site of the pitch"? Do the rugger boys create a better atmosphere than we do? They are allowed alcohol at their seats? Are we trying to fix the wrong problem?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

The crowds arrive earlier now. The difference is that now they stand about in the concourse eating and drinking, whereas before they used to invariably go straight from turnstile to terrace.

basically coz there was no such thing as a concourse

so is the real problem all this "no drinking within site of the pitch"? Do the rugger boys create a better atmosphere than we do? They are allowed alcohol at their seats? Are we trying to fix the wrong problem?

There was no concourse, but there was also no beer on sale.

I doubt allowing beers into the bowl would help the atmosphere much.

The thing about having a choice between seats or terracing is that it would invariably split those who'd rather not sit with "those yobbos who stand up and shout out all game" from those who'd rather not be surrounded by "those old farts who just sit there doing nothing".

Football's always had that mix of fans who support in different ways, but terracing (and safe standing to a lesser degree) would see the different types of fan in different parts of the ground, unlike now when they are all mixed together. It's a problem made worse at Reading where the most vocal element is at a side, which is also where the "spectator" type fan would also most likely choose to sit.

If we were to bring in a designated safe standing area, it would actually make more sense to make it in the North Stand. That would also ease fears about it being more likely to lead to crowd trouble, as it would remove the current problem of the potential for trouble in the scoreboard corner.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

Just sit down ffs

[Mr Angry]

As someone who likes all seater stadia, I think that there should be designated standing areas for both home and away fans at gorunds; therefore, those who want to stand have a place to do so; those that don't won't have their view obscured by a load of selfish pcunts. Those that want to stand will have - on their ticket - a waiver from taking legal action against the club, or the Police, in the event of injury caused by being in the standing area.

Furthermore, if that set up were to happen, then I would expect the stewarding to be a lot less relaxed in sitting areas for those who choose to persistently stand.

1 final thing; if it does come to pass, then I hope those who are advocating this will realise that if any fan dies on the terrace, it will be on THEIR conscience.

Exactly this.

Ermmm, but all the statistics show do discernible difference between the rate of accidents in standing and seated areas - the figures that the FLA used for years have been proven to be false and are now completely discredited, although it looks like the false perception that was peddled for years seems to have stuck with some. So I'm not sure how relevant the first paragraph is, as it's based on this totally false perception.

If you look at accident statistics, the most dangerous times at games are before and after the matches, when large numbers of people are moving in and out (no difference in the type of accommodation, BTW), and the most frequent cause of accidents is "scalding by hot drinks" so the idea you seem to have that standing is liable to cause death is utterly preposterous, I'm afraid.

I'd also expect stewarding in seated areas to be zero-tolerance towards persistent standing if safe-standing areas did come in - I'd also expect supporters to do a certain amount of self-policing, too.

You can quote statistics until you are blue in the face; all I'm saying is that if a fan dies on the terraces, it will be on the conscience of you and everybody else advocating standing areas. (Incidentally - nice bit of spin that; calling them "safe" standing areas - why not simply call them standing areas?? Unless you believe that standing is inherently unsafe of course........)

[handbags_harris]

You can quote statistics until you are blue in the face; all I'm saying is that if a fan dies on the terraces, it will be on the conscience of you and everybody else advocating standing areas. (Incidentally - nice bit of spin that; calling them "safe" standing areas - why not simply call them standing areas?? Unless you believe that standing is inherently unsafe of course........)

Mr A, I like you as a poster and also as a person, but probably for the first time I'm actually disappointed in you, given that you feel the need to belittle this debate by implying that there is some kind of misappropriation going on here, some kind of covering up of deficiencies of an argument, when in fact entirely the opposite is true. Svlad, the FSF, and indeed those in favour of safe-standing areas are all more than willing to discuss any possible deficiencies and not cover them up. Surely an intelligent and reasonable contributor like you can see that there is absolutely no spin involved, merely the obvious need to differentiate between "standing/terracing" which inherently conjures up images of old-style mass terraces, and "safe-standing" which is in itself something not entirely different but implements features that make standing at a football stadium as safe, if not safer, than watching a match in a seated area. There are numerous fundamental differences ensuring that safe-standing areas are exactly that - safe, many, if not all of which have been discussed in this thread. I would have thought that you wouldn't have needed this response but unfortunately your own use of language demands it. Here be my own perception of safe standing in comparison to a regular terrace, hopefully demonstrating in simple terms the difference between the two, and my hope for standing at football stadia in the not-too-distant future:

Standard terrace - shallow banked steps with barriers every 10-15 steps, unconfined areas allowing hundreds/thousands of people free access to any part of that particular stand - eg the South Bank. This is NOT the sort of standing area that anybody is advocating, one that has in the past been a contributing (but not the main) factor to disasters within stadia.

Safe-tanding terrace: Rows of steps that allow more foot space than your standard terrace, each row with barriers in front to prevent crowd surging and crushing from behind, sectioned into supervisable and manageable blocks (each block with a steward or two), and maybe possibly allocated spaces as per seated ticket holders.

Of course, your opinion on why you feel there has been spin within this debate is entirely welcomed, as without one I simply do not see the basis of where that opinion has been formulated.

[Mr Angry]

Handbags, I totally respect your views on this subject, and I'm happy to clarify where I'm coming from.

My view on the name given - safe-standing - is quite simple; call it what it is. These are areas where fans want to stand, so call them terraces. Why does it need to be called "safe" standing areas as that implies that other areas where people stand is unsafe. I appreciate that many people will conjure up grainy images of rampant youths in the 1970's with perms and flares with scarves tied to their wrists when they hear of standing at a football match, but even those advocating a return to standing areas will understand that many, many people will think of Hillsborough, Heysel and Ibrox, and so in order to try and pretend that those disasters weren't because of standing at football matches (and regardless of what fans of standing areas may say, those disasters DID happen in standing areas) those who are promoting the idea of a return to standing areas decide to call them "safe" standing areas. A bit like Countries being called Democratic usually being anything but!

I find a lot of the debate on here sanctimonious BS to be honest; there are some people that want to stand, and they disagree with all seater stadia and being made to do something they don't want to do. Thats fine - everyone is entitled to an opinion. But please don't try to make it out that those who point out some of the negatives associated with standing areas should be treated like simpletons. Oh, and for the record, I don't mind standing on a terrace (like the old days) but nowadays, generally I would rather not.

Its clear that my suggestion that any deaths of fans in a standing area of a ground should be on the conscience of the people promoting this idea seems to have touched a raw nerve; why is that?

I made my personal view clear earlier - I think that there should be designated terraces for both home and away fans, and that those fans who choose to stand in those areas will be agreeing to accept that if they are injured in that area then tough luck. Furthermore, anyone who then chooses to stand in non-standing areas should expect to be ejected from the ground. Those fans who want to stand can also pay a premium to cover the costs of changing the ground to satisfy their personal demands.

However, I suspect that once some parts of the ground is designated a standing area, there will be other problems to overcome - for example, what if more people want to stand in the designated standing area than that area is able to hold? I can easily see that happening if we have a big game against a Cardiff or a Leeds, and I can well imagine that situation could lead to security issues. Or is it everyone's earnest belief that a return to terraces will see everyone behaving in a reasonable and responsible manner?

[handbags_harris]

Handbags, I totally respect your views on this subject, and I'm happy to clarify where I'm coming from.

My view on the name given - safe-standing - is quite simple; call it what it is. These are areas where fans want to stand, so call them terraces. Why does it need to be called "safe" standing areas as that implies that other areas where people stand is unsafe. I appreciate that many people will conjure up grainy images of rampant youths in the 1970's with perms and flares with scarves tied to their wrists when they hear of standing at a football match, but even those advocating a return to standing areas will understand that many, many people will think of Hillsborough, Heysel and Ibrox, and so in order to try and pretend that those disasters weren't because of standing at football matches (and regardless of what fans of standing areas may say, those disasters DID happen in standing areas) those who are promoting the idea of a return to standing areas decide to call them "safe" standing areas. A bit like Countries being called Democratic usually being anything but!

The need to differentiate is as I said earlier - the obvious need to differentiate between "standing/terracing" which inherently conjures up images of old-style mass terraces, and "safe-standing" which is in itself something not entirely different but implements features that make standing at a football stadium as safe, if not safer, than watching a match in a seated area. To elaborate, the image of old-style terraces is one that people and organisations campaigning in favour of the introduction of safe-standing are trying to avoid completely, hence the use of the word "safe", as the perception is that old-style terraces are unsafe as a direct result of the venues you mention. As you rightly say, Hillsborough, Heysel and Ibrox all occurred in areas of stadia that held large terraces, in high profile games with large crowds. As a result people will, unfortunately, always associate the tragic events with terracing even though terracing was not in any way a contributory factor to either Ibrox or Heysel, and certainly not the one major reason why Hillsborough occurred. To reiterate, it is exactly these types of images that campaigners are trying to move away from.

I find a lot of the debate on here sanctimonious BS to be honest; there are some people that want to stand, and they disagree with all seater stadia and being made to do something they don't want to do. Thats fine - everyone is entitled to an opinion. But please don't try to make it out that those who point out some of the negatives associated with standing areas should be treated like simpletons. Oh, and for the record, I don't mind standing on a terrace (like the old days) but nowadays, generally I would rather not.

To a certain degree I agree, some people's perceptions and views (ignoring those who have merely entered in order to fish) have been somewhat misguided, some have been woefully wide of the mark. But those who have held firm with their reasoned arguments against, I believe, have been somewhat reactionary in their arguments, as though they have made up their mind without any in-depth discussion. Unfortunately this is a trait that is prevalent within human nature and one that needs to be overcome time and again and, sometimes, you need to address people in simple, straightforward terms in order to get your counterarguments across because otherwise people won't generally allow their view to be swayed.

Its clear that my suggestion that any deaths of fans in a standing area of a ground should be on the conscience of the people promoting this idea seems to have touched a raw nerve; why is that?

Perhaps the insensitive nature (admittedly this is highly ironic given my own personal character traits!) coupled with the difference between the types of standing area being discussed - old-style mass terracing/new style safe-standing - which would ensure that a death within a standing area as a direct result of being stood up is highly, highly unlikely. It also borders on your very own comment above: please don't try to make it out that those...should be treated like simpletons.

I made my personal view clear earlier - I think that there should be designated terraces for both home and away fans, and that those fans who choose to stand in those areas will be agreeing to accept that if they are injured in that area then tough luck. Furthermore, anyone who then chooses to stand in non-standing areas should expect to be ejected from the ground. Those fans who want to stand can also pay a premium to cover the costs of changing the ground to satisfy their personal demands.

However, I suspect that once some parts of the ground is designated a standing area, there will be other problems to overcome - for example, what if more people want to stand in the designated standing area than that area is able to hold? I can easily see that happening if we have a big game against a Cardiff or a Leeds, and I can well imagine that situation could lead to security issues. Or is it everyone's earnest belief that a return to terraces will see everyone behaving in a reasonable and responsible manner?

Absolutely the right mindset in my opinion, a shame that those in power don't share that view despite developed nations incorporating standing within their new stadia, as well as other pastimes involving much more activity than standing around with occasional moments of spontaneous delerium. Gigs/music festivals for example - it is actually considered safe to allow drunk people, or even those high on illegal substances, to converge right in front of a stage and create a mosh-pit. Is that safer than allowing someone to stand at a football match?

To counter-argue your last concerns, again we are not talking about old-style set-ups and processes to go along with the old-style terraces, we are talking about modern crowd control techniques in modern standing areas - my belief is that the principle of "one ticket, one space" should apply in the same manner that "one ticket, one seat" applies to seated areas. It would be very easy to get hard wearing paint on the floor to define specific spaces (we have it on the roads do we not?). The principle of "no ticket, no entry" also applies. In short, it would be very simple to implement exactly the same procedures for safe-standing areas as it is to control access to seated areas.

Lastly, it is my own belief that an introduction of safe standing in a responsible area of a stadium would probably see a reduction in behaviour considered against stadium rules, seeing as (in my own experience) the majority of people who get into trouble with authority within stadia are in trouble for persistent standing. Of course, that is not me saying incidents of bad behaviour will reduce, absolutely not, but what it would do is serve to introduce a more harmonious atmosphere between fans and those who supervise. I can offer no backup to this opinion however, save to say it is my own reasoned viewpoint based on personal experience and opinion.

[Big Foot]

I made my personal view clear earlier - I think that there should be designated terraces for both home and away fans, and that those fans who choose to stand in those areas will be agreeing to accept that if they are injured in that area then tough luck. Furthermore, anyone who then chooses to stand in non-standing areas should expect to be ejected from the ground. Those fans who want to stand can also pay a premium to cover the costs of changing the ground to satisfy their personal demands.

So you agree with what this campaign is looking to achieve.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I made my personal view clear earlier - I think that there should be designated terraces for both home and away fans, and that those fans who choose to stand in those areas will be agreeing to accept that if they are injured in that area then tough luck. Furthermore, anyone who then chooses to stand in non-standing areas should expect to be ejected from the ground. Those fans who want to stand can also pay a premium to cover the costs of changing the ground to satisfy their personal demands.

With respect, you're the only one making an assertion that there is more likely to be a fatality in a standing area than in a seating area. The statistics on crowd safety show that there is no statistically significant difference between accident rates in either type of accommodation, and that the likelihood of injury is minut in both areas.

So I'm perfectly happy with what you suggest, because I want to see properly designed safe-standing areas which, by their very definition, will not be intrinsically unsafe.

As to the cost - see the many posts about conversion cost which show how it could be cost-justified. And if conversion cost is your main objection, I take it that means that you'd have no objection to new builds or stadium extensions being equipped with safe-standing areas?