Standing at Tottenham

[Platypuss]

Yep, no evidence for demand there.

Check out their website - they are not wanting to be involved in building state of the art safe standing stadia are they?

What has that got to do with anything? If you think the results are not genuine, please give your evidence.

It's certainly evidence that there is demand for standing - the sort of evidence you said didn't exist.

Does it need it to be text voted by 3 million teenagers before you count anything as evidence?

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

Does it need it to be text voted by 3 million teenagers before you count anything as evidence?

TripLOLe LOLLY

[Baines]

Don't expect a straight reply Dirk. Paul doesn't seem willing to explain why people sitting in seats automatically means that they wouldn't want to stand on a terrace.

Do expect a glib reply with some rolling eyes included...

[paultheroyal]

Check out their website - they are not wanting to be involved in building state of the art safe standing stadia are they?

So? That explains why they commissioned the survey, but doesn't affect the validity of the results in any way.

DG - That is a better poll and results mind you - better than your first offering

It's actually the same poll - I've just included all of it. Mind you, I have got another 44 pages of good, strong, evidence if required.....

Paul, can I ask you a couple of straightforward yes/no questions, because I think you're not "getting" what I'm actually arguing for.

I personally can't and don't support standing in areas designed for seating, and I can't see that the "let's stand up anyway" approach is helpful or reasonable whilst many who don't want to stand or who can't stand are in with the same group of supporters. I support standing in properly designed "safe-standing" areas - the "German model" - which I appreciate will require a change in Government regulation.

1. Do you agree that there are significant numbers of people who want to stand at football matches, for whatever reason? Maybe not the majority, but certainly significant numbers.

2. Do you agree that if there were different areas of grounds configured for safe standing and for sitting, so that each group was kept separate, then things would be a lot better? Not only would those who choose to stand not be forcing those who can't/don't want to to do the same, but the major issue of confrontation between supporters and stewards would also be removed?

1. Yes - significant - but not the majority.

2. Improved - not necessary - refereed many games in majority standing stadia and atmosphere is no better or can be worse than game i have done at seating i.e. Bournemouth / Portsmouth. However, Confrontation would be removed i agree to that.

[paultheroyal]

Yep, no evidence for demand there.

Check out their website - they are not wanting to be involved in building state of the art safe standing stadia are they?

What has that got to do with anything? If you think the results are not genuine, please give your evidence.

It's certainly evidence that there is demand for standing - the sort of evidence you said didn't exist.

Does it need it to be text voted by 3 million teenagers before you count anything as evidence?

Evidence being my own experience - something i doubt you can top.

[paultheroyal]

Does it need it to be text voted by 3 million teenagers before you count anything as evidence?

TripLOLe LOLLY

[Platypuss]

Yep, no evidence for demand there.

Check out their website - they are not wanting to be involved in building state of the art safe standing stadia are they?

What has that got to do with anything? If you think the results are not genuine, please give your evidence.

It's certainly evidence that there is demand for standing - the sort of evidence you said didn't exist.

Does it need it to be text voted by 3 million teenagers before you count anything as evidence?

Evidence being my own experience - something i doubt you can top.

How does your experience negate the evidence presented?

[paultheroyal]

2 points are being raised here and crossed wires too.

I am giving evidence with first hand experience as evidence in relation to atmosphere in different stadiums.

I have participated in football matches at volatile stadiums both all stadia and 3/4s standing and can assure you there is no difference in atmosphere at these stadiums.

I quite rightly disagreed with DG stats and arguement as the one stat he did come up with was easily blown out of the water. He then produced numerous other results from same survey which i was ok with.

But again we are talking about survey results from a property consultant firm!!

That ok for you? Probably not.

[Platypuss]

I quite rightly disagreed with DG stats and arguement as the one stat he did come up with was easily blown out of the water. He then produced numerous other results from same survey which i was ok with.

But again we are talking about survey results from a property consultant firm!!

Blown out of the water? Eh? Where?

Regarding the provenance of the survey - as I've already said - so what?

What in particular was wrong with their survey methodology that makes the results invalid?

Naturally I assume you have a valid reason for discounting the results. I'm sure you wouldn't be so petty as to discard them out of hand just because you didn't like the findings.

Pretty sure I won't get a straight answer this time either.

[paultheroyal]

92% of fans thinking that they should be given freedom of choice to stand is totally different to 92% of fans wanting to stand at football matches.

2 totally different statements. I am sure the consultant doing the survey would be very interested in football stadia development.

I am not against standing dont get me wrong - i just think you are all overstating the demand for it. Spurs on Saturday a clear example of this. If fans want it and get it then great - its not for me but hey ho!!

For your benefit Platy it started with this response to DG post - and rightly so.

I have not got a problem with how the survey was carried out - i am sure this company has great intentions.

[Platypuss]

Let me get this straight.

1. You state that there is no evidence of demand for safe standing.

2. You agree that significant numbers of people want to stand at matches.

Please explain how you can hold these beliefs at the same time.

[paultheroyal]

Let me get this straight.

1. You state that there is no evidence of demand for safe standing.

2. You agree that significant numbers of people want to stand at matches.

Please explain how you can hold these beliefs at the same time.

1. In relation to Reading yes (there is no demand for safe standing) - using the last few away matches as perfect points - particulary Saturday for reasons already posted and i wont be retyping here.

2. Define significant? As stated earlier with DG not the majority. If we go by the majority then No - safe standing is not required. Majority for your benefit is 51/49 - HTH.

[Baines]

more people chose to sit than stand because they want to - not just because they have to!!!!

Come on paul - at least try to explain why people sitting in seats means that they wouldn't want to stand in a terrace. You don't seem to normally drop an opinion just because it's stupid - what's become of you?

[paultheroyal]

more people chose to sit than stand because they want to - not just because they have to!!!!

Come on paul - at least try to explain why people sitting in seats means that they wouldn't want to stand in a terrace. You don't seem to normally drop an opinion just because it's stupid - what's become of you?

Football has moved on. With seating you have a choice - and as it is now it works.....You sit and watch a game - gets exciting for goal mouth action....fans stand....action dies down...everyone sits down - i have not got a problem with that - and the "majority" of fans i am sure think the same.

After all the talk on here about standing....Spurs away was a classic example of this - stewards or no stewards I genuinely believe fans would rather sit and mix it up rather than stand for 90.

I stand by what i say guys.

[Platypuss]

Let me get this straight.

1. You state that there is no evidence of demand for safe standing.

2. You agree that significant numbers of people want to stand at matches.

Please explain how you can hold these beliefs at the same time.

1. In relation to Reading yes (there is no demand for safe standing) - using the last few away matches as perfect points - particulary Saturday for reasons already posted and i wont be retyping here.

2. Define significant? As stated earlier with DG not the majority. If we go by the majority then No - safe standing is not required. Majority for your benefit is 51/49 - HTH.

1. Your original statement about "no evidence" did not mention Reading, we were (and have been) talking about safe standing in general.

2. Significant >>> zero. It needs no further definition nor quantification.

Now please try again.

[Baines]

more people chose to sit than stand because they want to - not just because they have to!!!!

Come on paul - at least try to explain why people sitting in seats means that they wouldn't want to stand in a terrace. You don't seem to normally drop an opinion just because it's stupid - what's become of you?

Football has moved on. With seating you have a choice - and as it is now it works.....You sit and watch a game - gets exciting for goal mouth action....fans stand....action dies down...everyone sits down - i have not got a problem with that - and the "majority" of fans i am sure think the same.

After all the talk on here about standing....Spurs away was a classic example of this - stewards or no stewards I genuinely believe fans would rather sit and mix it up rather than stand for 90.

I stand by what i say guys.

Because there are seats there, and there is pressure to sit down from stewards and most considerate fans don't want to force the person behind them to stand.

PS I assume that you put "majority" in quotation marks because you were using it to mean "minority", bearing in mind the preference of 63% of fans for standing

I stand by what i say guys.

Indeed.

[Platypuss]

Naturally I assume you have a valid reason for discounting the results. I'm sure you wouldn't be so petty as to discard them out of hand just because you didn't like the findings.

Oops, looks like I was wrong. Quelle surprise.

[paultheroyal]

Let me get this straight.

1. You state that there is no evidence of demand for safe standing.

2. You agree that significant numbers of people want to stand at matches.

Please explain how you can hold these beliefs at the same time.

1. In relation to Reading yes (there is no demand for safe standing) - using the last few away matches as perfect points - particulary Saturday for reasons already posted and i wont be retyping here.

2. Define significant? As stated earlier with DG not the majority. If we go by the majority then No - safe standing is not required. Majority for your benefit is 51/49 - HTH.

1. Your original statement about "no evidence" did not mention Reading, we were (and have been) talking about safe standing in general.

2. Significant >>> zero. It needs no further definition nor quantification.

Now please try again.

Page 2, Page 3 - might help you.

Oh...and i gave you evidence on atmosphere - you soon went quiet on that one!

[paultheroyal]

more people chose to sit than stand because they want to - not just because they have to!!!!

Come on paul - at least try to explain why people sitting in seats means that they wouldn't want to stand in a terrace. You don't seem to normally drop an opinion just because it's stupid - what's become of you?

Football has moved on. With seating you have a choice - and as it is now it works.....You sit and watch a game - gets exciting for goal mouth action....fans stand....action dies down...everyone sits down - i have not got a problem with that - and the "majority" of fans i am sure think the same.

After all the talk on here about standing....Spurs away was a classic example of this - stewards or no stewards I genuinely believe fans would rather sit and mix it up rather than stand for 90.

I stand by what i say guys.

Because there are seats there, and there is pressure to sit down from stewards and most considerate fans don't want to force the person behind them to stand.

PS I assume that you put "majority" in quotation marks because you were using it to mean "minority", bearing in mind the preference of 63% of fans for standing

I stand by what i say guys.

Indeed.

Upper tier on Saturday there was no pressure from stewards - fans behaved accordingly.

[Platypuss]

Let me get this straight.

1. You state that there is no evidence of demand for safe standing.

2. You agree that significant numbers of people want to stand at matches.

Please explain how you can hold these beliefs at the same time.

1. In relation to Reading yes (there is no demand for safe standing) - using the last few away matches as perfect points - particulary Saturday for reasons already posted and i wont be retyping here.

2. Define significant? As stated earlier with DG not the majority. If we go by the majority then No - safe standing is not required. Majority for your benefit is 51/49 - HTH.

1. Your original statement about "no evidence" did not mention Reading, we were (and have been) talking about safe standing in general.

2. Significant >>> zero. It needs no further definition nor quantification.

Now please try again.

Page 2, Page 3 - might help you.

Oh...and i gave you evidence on atmosphere - you soon went quiet on that one!

I've been quite happy showing you up for the intransigent fool you quite obviously are with just the one aspect - there's been absolutely no need to go any wider.

It's certainly strange that this thread even exists given that there is no demand for safe standing at Reading.

My work is done here; I have to confess that RoyaLOLee was harder work.