Standing at home games

[LoyalRoyalFan]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96198&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p2471561

Your views on this matter?

[STAR Voice]

STAR's view is that strongly support the introduction of custom-designed safe-standing areas, and that the current law is wrong and should be changed as soon as possible. We are many others are actively campaigning, and working with politicians, in order to get this change to happen. Until that happens we recognise that the club is under a legal obligation, (at risk of losing their safety certificate, which is issued by the local authority) to ensure that "persistent" standing is reduced - or at least to be seen to be taking such steps.

Note that it is only persistent standing which is not permitted - not standing "per se." Every supporter should be aware of this fact if challenged by stewards, because I'm fairly sure not all stewards act as though they are aware of this distinction.

But the basic facts are that the law is the way the law is now, and all football clubs and local authorities have to follow that law unless it changes.

But also it is clear that there is significant demand amongst significant numbers of supporters to stand and that this demand is not reducing, and that all attempts by the FLA and ground authorities to reduce this demand or to fully enforce ground regulations regarding standing have failed. It's also inevitable (according to the Taylor Report), and therefore legal, that significant numbers of supporters will stand at moments of excitement (e.g. when goals are scored), and those those who can't stand or who don't want to stand are inconvenienced (and possibly or put in danger) by those who do stand.

All these facts add up to a clear conclusion that supporters must be given a choice to either sit or to stand, as they are so successfully in Germany.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Which politicians?

[STAR Voice]

Various, of various parties.

I won't list them all, as it won't help, but I will point out that the LibDem conference early last year voted in favour of safe-standing. I was down in Bournemouth giving out leaflets and answering queries that day.

At the time many scoffed and said "what's the point, the LibDems will never be in Government?" - shows how quickly things change!

Also, the ConDem coalition has asked for unnecessary and expensive quangoes that fulfil no useful purpose and which should be abolished - the FLA has already been nominated as it meets all the criteria they're looking for.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Another question.

On Saturday, the Reading fans who stood where forced to sit down.
However the Scunthorpe fans stood throughout?

[Jerry St Clair]

Also, the ConDem coalition has asked for unnecessary and expensive quangoes that fulfil no useful purpose and which should be abolished - the FLA has already been nominated as it meets all the criteria they're looking for.

£1m a year to fund it.

But it wouldn't change the law. It would just move the powers of enforcement elsewhere.

[STAR Voice]

Another question.

On Saturday, the Reading fans who stood where forced to sit down.
However the Scunthorpe fans stood throughout?

The reality of life (and please note I'm not stating policies or endorsing any type of behaviour from club or supporters here, just the way it is) is that the stewards have a greater range of powers when trying to get home supporters to sit down because home supporters want to come back (in the main, at least....). So they can be threatened with bans etc whereas away supporters can't, and action can be taken after the game or at the next game.

But more significantly than that, when a large number of supporters choose to stand in a block it's virtually impossible to take action against them, and the usual approach in that case is to ensure that aisles and gangways are clear rather than trying to make individuals sit or to throw out 400 individuals.

So while people (at home and away, when roles are reversed) scream "discrimination" it's not - it's the simple fact that the stewards, like anyone, will go for the easy targets, and it's easier to deal with relatively small numbers of people who are standing as individuals or small groups, rather than large numbers standing in a large group - especially when the stand they're in is well under capacity.

If the whole of Y25 or Y26 stood (I'm not suggesting this, just playing with hypotheticals) then the whole approach to stewarding there would be different., and no doubt the club would be passing on threats that that area would be closed if the "problem" was not resolved. But while relatively few people stand "persistently" (the key word - standing is allowed, persistent standing isn't) and the club needs to be seen to be doing something about it then they'll go for those few people.

[STAR Voice]

Also, the ConDem coalition has asked for unnecessary and expensive quangoes that fulfil no useful purpose and which should be abolished - the FLA has already been nominated as it meets all the criteria they're looking for.

£1m a year to fund it.

But it wouldn't change the law. It would just move the powers of enforcement elsewhere.

Agreed, but at the moment enforcing standing is one of the mail r'aisons d'etre of the FLA, which is why they pursue it with such ferocity, as it helps to justify their existence. In another department it'd be just another statutory duty so perhaps they might not be quite so vociferous in trying to stifle any criticism of the law.

But yes, the campaign to get the law changed carries on a pace. Here's another example of why - If Scunny stay up this year, that'll be their third year in Tier 2, and so by law the terrace at Glanford Park will need to be changed to all-seated accommodation. Under Green Guide rules this would reduce the total capacity there from 9,088 to 7,755. As well as reducing the away capacity from 3,000 to 1,666, away prices would have to go up from £20 to £24 to enable Scunny to make the same from each game and for parity with seated supporters. Scunny would also have to pay conversion costs.

Can anyone tell me why this is right? That terrace hasn't suddenly become dangerous after 3 years in the Championship - it's just the ludicrous effect of a badly-thought out law. Morecambe's new ground has standing accommodation because they didn't need outside funding - York City's new ground (Tier 5, this is!) can't have any because they need to fund it with Football Foundation money and the FLA stop the Football Foundation putting any money into any ground that is planned to have standing accommodation. the whole legal situation is a complete and utter pig's ear!

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

As well as reducing the away capacity from 3,000 to 1,666, away prices would have to go up from £20 to £24 to enable Scunny to make the same from each game and for parity with seated supporters. Scunny would also have to pay conversion costs.

IIRC, the away end is already all seater (going by our visit in April).

[Magnus]

After the Torquay disaster this is surely a non-starter.

[handbags_harris]

As well as reducing the away capacity from 3,000 to 1,666, away prices would have to go up from £20 to £24 to enable Scunny to make the same from each game and for parity with seated supporters. Scunny would also have to pay conversion costs.

IIRC, the away end is already all seater (going by our visit in April).

Correct, but SC means that because the total stadium capacity reduces, so does the away allocation.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/cutting-b ... all-seated