Safe-standing areas - TIME FOR ACTION

[weybridgewanderer]

You also seem to be missing the point I made that one of the key financial pre-requisites is that a stadium is at or near capacity so that you can sell the extra capacity.

and with about 6000 spare seats every week we are not exactly near capacity, so have you just destroyed your own business plan? or will you be happy with "we'll do the conversion if we get promoted again"?

Again I say convert Y26, existing capacity, same price

[weybridgewanderer]

1) See my post from 30 seconds ago - a financial prerequisite, stated at the time, was that the capacity could be sold. I never set that out as a fully formed proposal, it was an illustration for those who said clubs would never adopt it because it would cost too much. The properly costed proposal will take more time.

but its not just about the capacity being sold, it is about the capacity allowing us to earn mo remoney than we do at the moment

you will not do that if all you do is move Y25 and Y26 into the north stand and half the north stand chucks it becuase they will not be able to sit with their mates any more

one post you said you proposed a business plan. now it was just and illustration to show it wouldn't cost too much, and in the next sentence you have said you donlt know what it will cost. While my case is a little extreme, despite being in krakow I have a season ticket for the north stand and like to sit with people I have sat with for years. Lose them and it may be some time before I am back.

Your initial post was to get great, write to your MPs

Your next thing about "give clubs the choice to make their own decisions", absoluteley agree

Should we do it at the mad stad, yes I think we should

Is it financially viable, probably not so lets do it as simple and cheap and easy as possible, convert existing seats at the back of Y26 and charge the people that want to stand the same as we do today.

[Svlad Cjelli]

You also seem to be missing the point I made that one of the key financial pre-requisites is that a stadium is at or near capacity so that you can sell the extra capacity.

and with about 6000 spare seats every week we are not exactly near capacity, so have you just destroyed your own business plan? or will you be happy with "we'll do the conversion if we get promoted again"?

Again I say convert Y26, existing capacity, same price

No, I've been saying from the start that this is only valid where there is demand for any extra capacity. There isn't now, but there might be at a later date (don't forget that 4 years ago we were talking about a large-scale stadium expansion for the MadStad).

The tragedy would be that the correct financial conditions existed, the club could see the benefits and wanted to do this, but the law wouldn't let them, so the current campaign is getting the law changed so it is then up to individual clubs to do what they want to. It's a long-term process, but this is the vital first stage without which nothing can happen.

[weybridgewanderer]

It's a long-term process, but this is the vital first stage without which nothing can happen.

this I agree with

[West Stand Man]

3) This last point only holds water if you accept the assertion that standing areas are more dangerous than seated areas. They are categorically not, so this whole thread to the argument is invalid. If there is no greater risk why should anyone be worries about accepting it? If anything, standing in an area designed for seating is the most dangerous of all possibilities, because there's nothing effective to stop surges, except seats which are only up to knee level.

\
You really must read what people write. Whether there is evidence that standing is safe or not (and there isn't anything conclusive yet) there is still a perception that standing areas are more dangerous. So long as politicians think that there may be a risk then they are unlikely to be the ones to vote for the change. They are not likely to want to be held responsible for going back to the state of play that led to deaths in the 1970s and 80s.

You and many others may wish to return to standing being allowed but for it to become legal you will need politicians to believe that it is genuinely a low risk activity. That will be much harder than you think - and it is pointless citing the experience of Germany, or saying that you know that it is safe to have standing areas. Their perception counts for all.

[Svlad Cjelli]

3) This last point only holds water if you accept the assertion that standing areas are more dangerous than seated areas. They are categorically not, so this whole thread to the argument is invalid. If there is no greater risk why should anyone be worries about accepting it? If anything, standing in an area designed for seating is the most dangerous of all possibilities, because there's nothing effective to stop surges, except seats which are only up to knee level.

\
You really must read what people write. Whether there is evidence that standing is safe or not (and there isn't anything conclusive yet) there is still a perception that standing areas are more dangerous. So long as politicians think that there may be a risk then they are unlikely to be the ones to vote for the change. They are not likely to want to be held responsible for going back to the state of play that led to deaths in the 1970s and 80s.

You and many others may wish to return to standing being allowed but for it to become legal you will need politicians to believe that it is genuinely a low risk activity. That will be much harder than you think - and it is pointless citing the experience of Germany, or saying that you know that it is safe to have standing areas. Their perception counts for all.

I understand all of that completely - but that process is happening and has been happening for years. I think there is more of a perception of this perception in your mind than the reality. I've spoken to numerous politicians directly about this and they are beginning to understand the issues and move away from the knee-jerk and ill-informed Hillsborough link.

[paultheroyal]

3) This last point only holds water if you accept the assertion that standing areas are more dangerous than seated areas. They are categorically not, so this whole thread to the argument is invalid. If there is no greater risk why should anyone be worries about accepting it? If anything, standing in an area designed for seating is the most dangerous of all possibilities, because there's nothing effective to stop surges, except seats which are only up to knee level.

\
You really must read what people write. Whether there is evidence that standing is safe or not (and there isn't anything conclusive yet) there is still a perception that standing areas are more dangerous. So long as politicians think that there may be a risk then they are unlikely to be the ones to vote for the change. They are not likely to want to be held responsible for going back to the state of play that led to deaths in the 1970s and 80s.

You and many others may wish to return to standing being allowed but for it to become legal you will need politicians to believe that it is genuinely a low risk activity. That will be much harder than you think - and it is pointless citing the experience of Germany, or saying that you know that it is safe to have standing areas. Their perception counts for all.

Page 6 and at last some realism.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

You really must read what people write. Whether there is evidence that standing is safe or not (and there isn't anything conclusive yet) there is still a perception that standing areas are more dangerous. So long as politicians think that there may be a risk then they are unlikely to be the ones to vote for the change. They are not likely to want to be held responsible for going back to the state of play that led to deaths in the 1970s and 80s.

What deaths were caused by terracing in the 70s?

Hillsborough aside, what deaths were caused by terracing in the 1980s?

You make it sound like there were numerous fatalities.

[Svlad Cjelli]

3) This last point only holds water if you accept the assertion that standing areas are more dangerous than seated areas. They are categorically not, so this whole thread to the argument is invalid. If there is no greater risk why should anyone be worries about accepting it? If anything, standing in an area designed for seating is the most dangerous of all possibilities, because there's nothing effective to stop surges, except seats which are only up to knee level.

\
You really must read what people write. Whether there is evidence that standing is safe or not (and there isn't anything conclusive yet) there is still a perception that standing areas are more dangerous. So long as politicians think that there may be a risk then they are unlikely to be the ones to vote for the change. They are not likely to want to be held responsible for going back to the state of play that led to deaths in the 1970s and 80s.

You and many others may wish to return to standing being allowed but for it to become legal you will need politicians to believe that it is genuinely a low risk activity. That will be much harder than you think - and it is pointless citing the experience of Germany, or saying that you know that it is safe to have standing areas. Their perception counts for all.

Page 6 and at last some realism.

In your opinion, maybe, but I think you're massively in a minority on this, with your ideas fixed and your mind closed to anything you don't want to hear.

[West Stand Man]

You say that with such conviction and confidence. Are you absolutely sure that there is a majority view in favour of standing areas? On what do you base that?

[paultheroyal]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

Its like surveying kids queing for ice cream, asking whether they like ice cream or not!

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, family similar, or a large group of football colleagues at work say the same not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen. This is a similar campaign as capital punishment, rumoured that the majority want it, but it aint gonna happen.

[Ian Royal]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

Its like surveying kids queing for ice cream, asking whether they like ice cream or not!

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, family similar, or a large group of football colleagues at work say the same not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen. This is a similar campaign as capital punishment, rumoured that the majority want it, but it aint gonna happen.

Who do you expect to be asked about whether there should be the option to have safe standing at matches? Golfers? How is your survey any better than a professional one across a random sample? And I note you say they think it isn't going to happen... not that it shouldn't.

Don't ask, don't get. If you think it shouldn't happen campaign against it. If you don't care, then don't tell people who do not to waste their time.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

Its like surveying kids queing for ice cream, whether they like ice cream or not!

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen. This is a similar campaign as capital punishment, rumoured that the majority want it, but it aint gonna happen.

If you say so - for your own purposes you seem to have decided that FFS selected a biased sample, when they are an independent commercial polling organisation. Perhaps the truth is actually that a majority of supporters are actually in favour, and that's why numerous surveys of random samples of supporters come out in favour.

Still, as they say, there's none so blind as those who won't see. But I can tell you, whether you choose to believe it or not (and I suspect I know the answer) that I am convinced that this will happen before too many years have passed, and that the political progress made so far makes it closer now than it's ever been.

So feel free to sit their and gainsay without any in-depth knowledge of the subject, and see how it all turns out.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

But isn't that what you're doing with the below?

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, family similar, or a large group of football colleagues at work say the same not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen.

The majority of people I speak to at football would prefer a safe-standing area. I guess that's why people are able to choose different areas of the ground to sit in - so why shouldn't there be an area where people can choose to stand in?

Additionally - you say that standing at football is in the past. Well, having watched the JPT tropy between Brentford and Charlton tonight, I'd say it was still in the present. Also, seeing as the seated areas weren't full, do you accept that, when given the choice, some people would actually prefer to stand?

Add into the mix those clubs whose away support stands throughout games - again, would you accept that the majority of these people would also prefer to stand?

Or do they fall into the "if you pick correctly" group and so should be discounted?

[paultheroyal]

I have plenty of knowledge, and applaud you for the campaign, as i would with any other campaign which has substance. You say in time it will happen, I say it wont. But i have no issue for those who do campaign for it, but i will also express my view that i believe its a total non starter.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Fair enough - I am intimately involved in the campaign on a day-to-day basis and I can certainly see the progress being made.

I'd be interested on what basis you're so convinced that it will never happen.

[paultheroyal]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

But isn't that what you're doing with the below?

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, family similar, or a large group of football colleagues at work say the same not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen.

The majority of people I speak to at football would prefer a safe-standing area. I guess that's why people are able to choose different areas of the ground to sit in - so why shouldn't there be an area where people can choose to stand in?

Additionally - you say that standing at football is in the past. Well, having watched the JPT tropy between Brentford and Charlton tonight, I'd say it was still in the present. Also, seeing as the seated areas weren't full, do you accept that, when given the choice, some people would actually prefer to stand?

Add into the mix those clubs whose away support stands throughout games - again, would you accept that the majority of these people would also prefer to stand?

Or do they fall into the "if you pick correctly" group and so should be discounted?

Accept all your points T.R.O.L.I. but whilst we are still alive in the memory of this...



(and i could post some vile other english crushing photos but i wont)

....No government or professional organisation will take this further - "safe standing" or not.

Again you cant use a Johnstone Paint Trophy game as an example, you might as well include Basingstoke vs Salisbury played last Saturday.

Think we all agree that some like to sit, some like to stand, but to take this forward, you need to be polling those people who sit every week at Premiership and Championship games, i bet the results then would be very different.

[paultheroyal]

Fair enough - I am intimately involved in the campaign on a day-to-day basis and I can certainly see the progress being made.

I'd be interested on what basis you're so convinced that it will never happen.

Genuinely not being obnoxious when i post my comments. I just personnally think its a dead duck for the simple reason posted by some already and my comments to T.R.O.L.I. above.

[paultheroyal]

Very open minded etc - but anyone can do a survey from a group of fans who are always going to be in favour if you pick correctly.

Its like surveying kids queing for ice cream, asking whether they like ice cream or not!

Standing at football is in the past, majority of people i speak to or sit near say the same, family similar, or a large group of football colleagues at work say the same not all but the majority, and this is just not going to happen. This is a similar campaign as capital punishment, rumoured that the majority want it, but it aint gonna happen.

Who do you expect to be asked about whether there should be the option to have safe standing at matches? Golfers? How is your survey any better than a professional one across a random sample? And I note you say they think it isn't going to happen... not that it shouldn't.

Don't ask, don't get. If you think it shouldn't happen campaign against it. If you don't care, then don't tell people who do not to waste their time.

Just a thought, do you stand when you are at home listening to the game on the radio? (for 90 mins)

[Svlad Cjelli]

I can't believe that you're using Hillsborough as an argument against safe-standing - that's a frighteningly simplistic and ill-informed view that has been thoroughly discredited, and one which virtually nobody subscribes to any more.

If you really think that's a valid argument I'm afraid I don't accept your claim that "you have plenty of knowledge"