Safe-Standing petition

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

i meant returning to old style terracing.

make the crushes impossible, and terraces arent a problem at all.

It wasn't even old style terracing that was that much of a problem.

It's more a case of controls on capacity. People died at Hillsborough because the section they were in was overfilled. Control the numbers in each area and there's no chance of that problem happening again.

[Svlad Cjelli]

i meant returning to old style terracing.

make the crushes impossible, and terraces aren't a problem at all.

It wasn't even old style terracing that was that much of a problem.

It's more a case of controls on capacity. People died at Hillsborough because the section they were in was overfilled. Control the numbers in each area and there's no chance of that problem happening again.

Quite apart from that, just make sure that there aren't fences around thee areas - so even if they do get overfilled people can escape the crush.

[Christof]

Done

[Blue_White_Blood]

Standing at times of excitement (the times Zac will most want to see) is recognised as inevitable and allowed under ground regulations.

It's "persistent standing" that is against ground regulations.

This doesn't make sence. Surely the time that is most dangerous for standing is at times of excitement. Almost makes you think that the people who decided this rule had shares in a company that would supply the seating for PL/FL clubs.

It doesn't make sense because who ever made the rules is a fool!!! "Standing at times of excitement is recognised as inevitable and allowed under ground regulations." but like its says persistent standing is against ground regulations, now what happens if i am excited through out the whole game? what happens then? surely nobody can say to me im not excited, when clearly i am that's why im standing up!!!

[Jerry St Clair]

This doesn't make sence. Surely the time that is most dangerous for standing is at times of excitement. Almost makes you think that the people who decided this rule had shares in a company that would supply the seating for PL/FL clubs.

I'd love to meet the FLA inspector who thinks that passive standing is dangerous, but playing music after a goal to encourage people to jump around even more is safe. Perhaps he thinks there's safety in numbers of summink.

[Svlad Cjelli]

This doesn't make sence. Surely the time that is most dangerous for standing is at times of excitement. Almost makes you think that the people who decided this rule had shares in a company that would supply the seating for PL/FL clubs.

I'd love to meet the FLA inspector who thinks that passive standing is dangerous, but playing music after a goal to encourage people to jump around even more is safe. Perhaps he thinks there's safety in numbers of summink.

To be fair to the FLA, not even they are talking about safety being an issue now - their "statistics" have been proved to be invalid, and it's now generally acknowledged by anyone who knows the subject that this is not really a safety issue. In fact, the officially most dangerous times at football matches are when supporters are entering and leaving the stadium - there is a far greater risk to them then, statistically, than at any time when the match is in progress.

Instead, it's really morphed into more of a "crowd control" issue - the assumption seems to be that those who want to stand are much more likely to be hooligans.

[Royal With Cheese]

Instead, it's really morphed into more of a "crowd control" issue - the assumption seems to be that those who want to stand are much more likely to be hooligans.

Would agree that it would be easier for you to be tracked in seating areas than standing. However, with HD technology nowaday it shouldn't prove impossible to find and prosecute hooligans in standing areas of grounds.

[Jerry St Clair]

Instead, it's really morphed into more of a "crowd control" issue - the assumption seems to be that those who want to stand are much more likely to be hooligans.

I'm so glad we've moved on from the prejudices of Thatcher and Moynihan.

[66DD]

Instead, it's really morphed into more of a "crowd control" issue - the assumption seems to be that those who want to stand are much more likely to be hooligans.

Would agree that it would be easier for you to be tracked in seating areas than standing. However, with HD technology nowaday it shouldn't prove impossible to find and prosecute hooligans in standing areas of grounds.

Hooligans are much more likely to want to stand if the opportunity was there. It's quite difficult to demonatrate hooligan behaviour from a sitting position. I don't see that everyone who wants to stand has to be a hooligan though.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Hooligans are much more likely to want to stand if the opportunity was there.

How so? Any evidence or statistics to back that up?

[roadrunner]

Instead, it's really morphed into more of a "crowd control" issue - the assumption seems to be that those who want to stand are much more likely to be hooligans.

Would agree that it would be easier for you to be tracked in seating areas than standing. However, with HD technology nowaday it shouldn't prove impossible to find and prosecute hooligans in standing areas of grounds.

Future new member cards with a photo id on them might be an idea, and then the cameras can do a search of anyone that has been reported, or the police are interested in tracking down.

[Wycombe Royal]

Has whichever organisation that is running this campaign/petition actually approached the clubs and gained their backing? What is the point if no clubs want to actually introduce safe standing areas. It will also have a lot more weight with the authorities if it has some official backing.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Has whichever organisation that is running this campaign/petition actually approached the clubs and gained their backing? What is the point if no clubs want to actually introduce safe standing areas. It will also have a lot more weight with the authorities if it has some official backing.

Individual clubs are reluctant to put their heads above the parapets until the law has changed, although there is a significant level of support amongst some clubs and club officials.

But the campaign isn't to have safe-standing areas at each ground - it's for the law to be changed so that clubs are legally allowed to have safe-standing areas if they decide to.

Once that first stage is achieved then supporters can canvass the individual clubs and make their views know and push for safe-standing areas at their grounds - but at the moment no club can do so even if they wanted to.

The quick wins would be for clubs like Scunny - who will be forced into administration by the conversion charges if they don't get relegated because of the law that effectively says it's unsafe to stand there in Tier 2 but it has been safe for the past two seasons at the same level of the game.

[Wycombe Royal]

Has whichever organisation that is running this campaign/petition actually approached the clubs and gained their backing? What is the point if no clubs want to actually introduce safe standing areas. It will also have a lot more weight with the authorities if it has some official backing.

Individual clubs are reluctant to put their heads above the parapets until the law has changed, although there is a significant level of support amongst some clubs and club officials.

But the campaign isn't to have safe-standing areas at each ground - it's for the law to be changed so that clubs are legally allowed to have safe-standing areas if they decide to.

Once that first stage is achieved then supporters can canvass the individual clubs and make their views know and push for safe-standing areas at their grounds - but at the moment no club can do so even if they wanted to.

But that is my point, they will have a far greater chance of getting to the first stage if they have the official support of some clubs, otherwise the people setting the laws can just say the clubs don't want it changed therefore there is no need for the law to be changed (for example the Premier League have already said they are against safe standing).

[JC]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

I will later - ! need to leave for work now.

But for the moment I'll say that this isn't just about our club, it's about all clubs - including those we visit - being given the chance to do this is they want to.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

No one is suggesting making space for tens of thousands to stand, I would suggest £100 would be top cost of the barriers per stading space.

[Wycombe Royal]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

No one is suggesting making space for tens of thousands to stand, I would suggest £100 would be top cost of the barriers per stading space.

So they can just charge an extra £100 per season ticket for one season for anyone who wants to go in a safe standing area, assuming it sells out. Sorted.

[TFF]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

I will later - ! need to leave for work now.

But for the moment I'll say that this isn't just about our club, it's about all clubs - including those we visit - being given the chance to do this is they want to.

Given that one of the "benefits" of standing would be improved atmosphere/more vociferous support why on earth would any club provide the facility for visiting supporters?

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Can anybody explain to me how we can gave safe standing without spending a fortune. The stands at our ground are steep with large steps so it would be too dangerous to stand unless you were to build safety barriers all along every step and I cannot seee the club spending that kind of money.

No one is suggesting making space for tens of thousands to stand, I would suggest £100 would be top cost of the barriers per stading space.

So they can just charge an extra £100 per season ticket for one season for anyone who wants to go in a safe standing area, assuming it sells out. Sorted.

Why would they need to get it back in one go, safe standing will only come to RFC if it increases turnover over a few seasons, It could cost less with stewards if the areas were both behind the goals, lose the flashpoint between South and East stands then. And they could sell on the seats they remove to create the area, unlikely to happen for a good few years tho. Especially if we get promoted again.