Safe-standing areas - TIME FOR ACTION

[ZacNaloen]

The guidelines quite clearly state that you can, there is nothing inaccurate about my statement. It just depends on how the club choose to implement safe standing.

[weybridgewanderer]

I never said your statement was inaccurate either, just pointing out some of the practicalities of implementing it at the madejski, it can be done, but don't believe it will mean an increased capacity

our concourses are small enough and could not cope with another 80%

[Rex]

It would work with phasing if needed. Also 80% increase in a limited area will not impact enough into a push and shove. An area that will need looking at is a fire evacuation process that will ensure (within reason) everybodies safe and controlled exit onto or out of the stadium.

[ZacNaloen]

Just get everyone onto the pitch and out those two big exits on the east.

[Rex]

Sorry i missed out the pitch in the last sentence.

[ZacNaloen]

Massive 'greed with Svlad.

Most importantly, this is the best way of encouraging a younger and more cash-strapped supporters to come/continue to come to football. Which even if there was a slight loss in match day revenue now, would bring benefits in the future.

Presumably, if it was done, the easiest way to do it would be to convert the North Stand.

I was actually thinking Lower West might be easier to convert.

Because the corporate area is behind you don't need to make too many (if any, beyond replacing the current seating plan) adjustments to the existing structure so views aren't blocked for those behind as I imagine may be an issue in the north.

[biscuitman]

I was actually thinking Lower West might be easier to convert.

Agreed. No chance of just converting Y25/26. Either that or behind the goals.

[roadrunner]

In my opinion that wouldn't work because the Upper West wouldn't like the noise of the working class below them, and I would imagine many of us who like a good shout would want to stand and probably move across. I would envisage any changes to be to the top half of the East Stand, and if demand was there the top half of the North Stand as well. That way you don't get in the way of those wanting to remain seated as they are below you, and the vocal support remains where it is currently.

[ZacNaloen]

tbh i couldn't give a toss what those in the upper west think.

But also the acoustic of the ground is such that you can't hear much beyond what's going on in your little corner anyway.

I never particularly understand "East stand is so noisy" stuff that gets mentioned on here because I'm way off opposite why 25/26 in the upper northwest and can't hear them. As in reality that's the only part of east that really makes and noise.

[ruprecht]

A standing area would have to be located in the lower half of a stand as the gradient is shallower nearer the bottom. Far too steep at the top.

It would be good to have a standing area. Reckon you'd definitely get around 500 people interested. Unfortunately I can't see it happening as there's nothing in it for the people who make the decisions for such things. They'll say they'll investigate it but at the end of the day the FA just aren't interested in match day experience / helping the less wealthy in society get to see a game. They're just interested in getting the maximum amount of revenue for the least amount of effort and introducing safe standing areas is just too much effort for the dinosaurs at the top. Its definitely worth badgering them about it if you believe in it though.

Email sent

[Svlad Cjelli]

A standing area would have to be located in the lower half of a stand as the gradient is shallower nearer the bottom. Far too steep at the top.

It would be good to have a standing area. Reckon you'd definitely get around 500 people interested. Unfortunately I can't see it happening as there's nothing in it for the people who make the decisions for such things. They'll say they'll investigate it but at the end of the day the FA just aren't interested in match day experience / helping the less wealthy in society get to see a game. They're just interested in getting the maximum amount of revenue for the least amount of effort and introducing safe standing areas is just too much effort for the dinosaurs at the top. Its definitely worth badgering them about it if you believe in it though.

Email sent

Thanks - this really isn't anything to do with the FA, though. The key point is that even those clubs who do now (or may later) want safe-steading areas aren't allowed to because of this law.

It ought to be down to the each club to decide what they want to do - an individual club decision, to allow them to maximise income knowing their own supporters. Some clubs might want a higher proportion of safe-standing spaces, some might want a lower one, some might want none, but it ought to be their choice.

[roadrunner]

A standing area would have to be located in the lower half of a stand as the gradient is shallower nearer the bottom. Far too steep at the top.

What has the steepness got to do with it? Part of the safe standing implemented in Germany is safety barriers in front of your seat/standing area. Therefore there is no problem with a stand being too steep. If anything it provides each supporter a better view.

[Red]

And a bit of exercise walking up to the back of the stand.

[Jerry St Clair]

Email sent to Martin Horwood, MP for Chelters.

[Big Foot]

E-mail sent to Alok Sharma, Reading West MP

[Ian Royal]

Email to Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge... fair chance of him supporting it seeing as he is also a Lib Dem and I think he's a Cambridge Utd fan, who still have a terrace.

[West Stand Man]

A standing area would have to be located in the lower half of a stand as the gradient is shallower nearer the bottom. Far too steep at the top.

What has the steepness got to do with it? Part of the safe standing implemented in Germany is safety barriers in front of your seat/standing area. Therefore there is no problem with a stand being too steep. If anything it provides each supporter a better view.

Steepness has everything to do with it. Terracing is built less steep so that you don't tend to fall forwards. Check out the photos on the German standing areas - they are much less steep than the Mad Stad. If you have been on the lower tier of the Millennium Stadium you'll have seen the same effect - because the lower tier is based on the terracing of the old Arms Park.

[handbags_harris]

Email to John Redwood, MP for Wokingham.

[Upper West Ginger]

Email to Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby (the place, not the sport).

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

A standing area would have to be located in the lower half of a stand as the gradient is shallower nearer the bottom. Far too steep at the top.

What has the steepness got to do with it? Part of the safe standing implemented in Germany is safety barriers in front of your seat/standing area. Therefore there is no problem with a stand being too steep. If anything it provides each supporter a better view.

Steepness has everything to do with it. Terracing is built less steep so that you don't tend to fall forwards. Check out the photos on the German standing areas - they are much less steep than the Mad Stad. If you have been on the lower tier of the Millennium Stadium you'll have seen the same effect - because the lower tier is based on the terracing of the old Arms Park.

Terracing can be steeper than we are used to. You just need a lot of barriers. Here's a new terrace at the rebuilt Dynamo Dresden Stadium, for example.