Standing at home games.

[Dirk Gently]

You've got to credit RFC for doing there bit in curbing binge drinking at football by serving up the most rancid, over-priced p*ss masquerading as beer. I would only drink that pre-poured puke if I was given the opportunity to drink it straight from Megan Fox's vulva, otherwise forget it.

That's where the is such an advantage in the MadStad being so close to the Courage brewery. The Forsters is piped stright in from underground pipes fed by the urinals at the brewery.

[RoyalBlue]

Why is it that I've stood at all seater grounds - some more rowdy than others, for instance last season at Ashton Gate we had cause to celebrate and I'm quite sure no one died in doing so - and the (fantastic) stewards there didn't bat an eyelid?

.

There had been hundreds of games at Valley Parade in a wooden stand with rubbish under it before one day it burned down. It hadn't been safe for all those years, the inevitable just hadn;t happened yet.

Likewise Hillsboro had staged many big games, as had similar grounds,without the scale of carnage that happened at the semi. But there had been lots of instances of crushes and near disasters (most games at the old pre seater Wembley were horrific).

At Ashton Gate last season you may have though there were no problems but when Cisse scored there was a charge from the back, several people found their legs swept from under then by the row of seats in front of the gangway, they shot forward knocking others over and two people next to me cracked their heads on the seats as they were unexpectedly smashed from behind. It coul dhave been worse, a rowdier crowd, a bit more pushing, a few more peopleslipping and getting buried under a pile of bodies. It didn;t happen, but a surge of people across an open space then hitting a low level barrier such as seats could lead to a real tragedy.

I miss the terraces. it's sad my kids never experienced the Southbank and I agree there ought to be a way of allowing people to stand in safety. Standing in a seated area is an accident waiting to happen and it is just being blinkered to say that becasue there hasn;t been a problem there can;t be one.

If it really is such a big accident waiting to happen, then surely the club are being negligent in allowing away supporters to stand for large parts, if not all of the game. However, if you accept their argument that intervening to take action against the offenders is more likely to cause problems/danger then the accident waiting to happen is probably not much different to driving a car!

[Sun Tzu]

I doubt they are being negligent, they've just decided that the risks of one outweigh the risks of the other (probably ignoring the red herring of the car !)

The FLA will probably have agreed to their assessment.

In any case your worked out plan to ensure 4000 away fans sit down would be welcome ( as long as it takes into account all the previous debate on the subject !)

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Noticed at Leeds, they were allowed to stand up last night.

[Rex]

As we know there are differing levels of stewarding and relaxing of the attitude to standing.

SU - stood all game no issues.
Forest - fart and you are ejected.

[Jerry St Clair]

The FLA and local councils are getting this horribly wrong. Persistent standing is on the increase, yet the authorties adopt an, er, authoritarian approach to it which is simply not working. If there is an incident in seated area which is caused by people standing in, then the authorities will be culpable because of their belligerence in refusing to even consider provision of safe standing areas.

RE: Leeds. Elland Road now has persistent standing on three sides of the ground at most home games. The majority of away fans in the Premier League stand persistently. The only ones that don't, that I've seen, are Portsmouth, Fulham and Bolton.

[Sun Tzu]

It does appear there is a laissez-faire attitude spreading. Which is really the worst of all options as I really believe that standing in seated areas will one day lead to a major incident.

Much better to either enforce the rules (which in reality is impossible) or redraw them to find a way of allowing standing properly.

A rule that you cannot enforce is a pointless rule.

[Rex]

^^^^
Agreed as it naturally leads to conflict which both parties could do without.

[Jerry St Clair]

It does appear there is a laissez-faire attitude spreading. Which is really the worst of all options as I really believe that standing in seated areas will one day lead to a major incident.

You need to draw a distinction between passive standing, and what happens during the celebration of a goal. Your example regarding Ashton Gate earlier in the thread is poor, IMHO, because that would have happened whether people had been sat down immediately prior to the goal or whether they had been passively standing.

[Sun Tzu]

It does appear there is a laissez-faire attitude spreading. Which is really the worst of all options as I really believe that standing in seated areas will one day lead to a major incident.

You need to draw a distinction between passive standing, and what happens during the celebration of a goal. Your example regarding Ashton Gate earlier in the thread is poor, IMHO, because that would have happened whether people had been sat down immediately prior to the goal or whether they had been passively standing.

Although I'm not sure it tends to happen if people are sat down, the dynamics are just different. I can't recall instances of a seated crowd suddenly all standing up and charging forward.
And 'passive' standing seems a difficult idea. People weren't 'passively' standing at Ashton Gate, they were jumping around all over the place.

[Dirk Gently]

It does appear there is a laissez-faire attitude spreading. Which is really the worst of all options as I really believe that standing in seated areas will one day lead to a major incident.

I think you need to substitute the words "laissez-faire" with the word "realistic". The FLA reps are realising that when large numbers are habitually standing in any specific area, it is unrealistic for the club's staff to be able to force them to sit down. So instead they are concentrating on the things that really affect safety, like keeping aisles and gangways free. And at many places, this is coming from the clubs, who don't want their staff put in such invidious positions tyring to perform an impossible task on behalf of the FLA.

Although I'm not sure it tends to happen if people are sat down, the dynamics are just different. I can't recall instances of a seated crowd suddenly all standing up and charging forward.

You need to get the idea of old-style, very large terraces out of your mind. No-one is proposing their return. Smaller, scientifically designed safe-standing areas would have lateral barriers to stop this.

And 'passive' standing seems a difficult idea. People weren't 'passively' standing at Ashton Gate, they were jumping around all over the place.

But, under current legislation, that is perfectly legal as long as they were doing it at a "time of excitement" - as long as they weren't doing it "persistently." That's the paradox - it's legal (and therefore safe) to stand there at the time people are most likely to be excited and jumping around - but when the match is boring and nothing of any note is happening is the time when the law says that it's suddenly unsafe to stand there.

PS - remind me of the casualty numbers from Ashton Gate that day?

[Sun Tzu]

I fully understand how the possible safe standing areas would operate Dirk. I was referring the appalling set up at Ashton Gate. And in case you have forgotten the old fashioned terraces had crush barriers anyway. Many the time I've seen people squeezed against them struggling for breath.

I find you glib comment about casualties at Ashton Gate disturbing. People did get hurt but presumably if they aren't recorded in the accident book they don;t count ? Two people next to me took big bangs to the head and one was trapped in an incredibly dangerous position across the seats with a pile of bodies on him.

[Jerry St Clair]

Although I'm not sure it tends to happen if people are sat down, the dynamics are just different. I can't recall instances of a seated crowd suddenly all standing up and charging forward.
And 'passive' standing seems a difficult idea. People weren't 'passively' standing at Ashton Gate, they were jumping around all over the place.

The crowd was passively standing at all times except when the goal was scored. My point is that there would have been jumping around and charging forward whether the crowd had been seated prior to the goal, or not.

[Dirk Gently]

I fully understand how the possible safe standing areas would operate Dirk. I was referring the appalling set up at Ashton Gate. And in case you have forgotten the old fashioned terraces had crush barriers anyway. Many the time I've seen people squeezed against them struggling for breath.

I find you glib comment about casualties at Ashton Gate disturbing. People did get hurt but presumably if they aren't recorded in the accident book they don;t count ? Two people next to me took big bangs to the head and one was trapped in an incredibly dangerous position across the seats with a pile of bodies on him.

Which just proves that Ashton Gate (and lots of other areas) should be converted to safe-standing areas as soon as possible.

The basic facts that I don't think anyone can actually argue with are :
1. There is demand amongst significant numbers of supporters to stand and this demand is not reducing
2. All attempts by the FLA and ground authorities to reduce this demand or to fully enforce ground regulations regarding standing have failed
3. It is 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)
4. 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
5. Standing in areas designed for seating is more dangerous than standing in areas designed for standing (it's only a small increase in risk but this clearly must be true).

All these 5 facts together and there is only one possible conclusion - introduce custom-designed safe-standing areas.

(PS - this reminds me of an exchange I had with a steward at the MadStad last season, as I was running towards the car park after the final whistle had gone.
Him : Don't run!
Me : Why not?
Him : Because you might fall over and hurt yourself.
Me : Don't you think I'm old enough to decide for myself whether to take that risk.
Him : No answer....)

[Terminal Boardom]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned earlier (too lazy to check) but the away end at Ashton Gate has to be one of the worst conversions of a former terrace to seats. The seats have just been bolted onto the original terrace and what's worse, the seats are of the tractor seat variety (would I expect different in the ewest country)! Had the terrace been bulldozed and then rebuilt as a purpose built stand this may have improved matters and reduced the risk.

[working class hero]

Sun Tzu wrote:I fully understand how the possible safe standing areas would operate Dirk. I was referring the appalling set up at Ashton Gate. And in case you have forgotten the old fashioned terraces had crush barriers anyway. Many the time I've seen people squeezed against them struggling for breath.

I find you glib comment about casualties at Ashton Gate disturbing. People did get hurt but presumably if they aren't recorded in the accident book they don;t count ? Two people next to me took big bangs to the head and one was trapped in an incredibly dangerous position across the seats with a pile of bodies on him.



Which just proves that Ashton Gate (and lots of other areas) should be converted to safe-standing areas as soon as possible.

Alternatively it could be seen to prove that if fans do not behave then ticket allocations should be cut....

[Terminal Boardom]

Sun Tzu wrote:I fully understand how the possible safe standing areas would operate Dirk. I was referring the appalling set up at Ashton Gate. And in case you have forgotten the old fashioned terraces had crush barriers anyway. Many the time I've seen people squeezed against them struggling for breath.

I find you glib comment about casualties at Ashton Gate disturbing. People did get hurt but presumably if they aren't recorded in the accident book they don;t count ? Two people next to me took big bangs to the head and one was trapped in an incredibly dangerous position across the seats with a pile of bodies on him.



Which just proves that Ashton Gate (and lots of other areas) should be converted to safe-standing areas as soon as possible.

Alternatively it could be seen to prove that if fans do not behave then ticket allocations should be cut....

As has happened at the Mad Stad in the past resulting in reduced ticket allocations for Millwall, Cardiff and Leeds fans for regularly flouting ground regulations.

[Dirk Gently]

Sun Tzu wrote:I fully understand how the possible safe standing areas would operate Dirk. I was referring the appalling set up at Ashton Gate. And in case you have forgotten the old fashioned terraces had crush barriers anyway. Many the time I've seen people squeezed against them struggling for breath.

I find you glib comment about casualties at Ashton Gate disturbing. People did get hurt but presumably if they aren't recorded in the accident book they don;t count ? Two people next to me took big bangs to the head and one was trapped in an incredibly dangerous position across the seats with a pile of bodies on him.



Which just proves that Ashton Gate (and lots of other areas) should be converted to safe-standing areas as soon as possible.

Alternatively it could be seen to prove that if fans do not behave then ticket allocations should be cut....

As has happened at the Mad Stad in the past resulting in reduced ticket allocations for Millwall, Cardiff and Leeds fans for regularly flouting ground regulations.

Peopel assume that cut ticket allocations are a "punishment" - but in reality things are quite different.

Remember a few pages back I explained that according to the Green Guide nine supporters standing are deeemd to take the same width as ten 10 of them sitting down? That's why there are reduictions of capacity for clubs whose supporters are likely to stand - because according to this Green Guide figure the capacity of an area i reduce by 10% if everyone stands.

So it's a pragmatic realisation of the fact that if large numbers are going to stand that the capacity needs to be reduced in order to keep aisles and walkways clear, rather than any "big stick" punishment as seems to be generally assumed. Of course, this only atually works if that 10% reduction is applied evenly across that area (e.g. every 10th seat not sold) - in practice it never happens like that!

Also, this punishes the revenue of the home club, since they can sell 10% fewer tickets through no fault of their own.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

The club needs to be challenged on this policy.

[Dirk Gently]

The club needs to be challenged on this policy.

Read all of the previous posts and you'll see it has nothing to do with the club.