Safe-Standing Areas

[66DD]

Having a disability that prevents me from standing for long periods I am gradually coming round the idea of safe standing areas, having been opposed to them in the past. However, to my mind to be acceptable, a standing area must:
not be located in front of a seating area (unless on a lower tier):
be designed so that it would not be possible to have crowd surges, and
not cost less to spectate from than an equivalent seated part of the stadium.

[Dirk Gently]

Having a disability that prevents me from standing for long periods I am gradually coming round the idea of safe standing areas, having been opposed to them in the past. However, to my mind to be acceptable, a standing area must:
not be located in front of a seating area (unless on a lower tier):
be designed so that it would not be possible to have crowd surges, and
not cost less to spectate from than an equivalent seated part of the stadium.

I certainly agree with the first two parts of the post - they are givens in my mind.

Not sure I can agree with the last one, though - can I ask what your reasoning is in this? In my mind it's a good thing to bring down ticket prices if this can be done, although this certainly isn't the motivation behind my fervant support of safe-standing.

[West Stand Man]

So unless you can give me a reason why Hobnob users aren't representative of Reading football supporters in general I'd say any poll on here is a pretty good indicator of their opinion. I don't think any internet survey can be properly scientific, but I do think this gives an overall non-scientific snapshot of views - without ever producing any figures that could ever be quoted in a scientific or authoritative way.

As to what the survey is about, as mentioned a few times it's to ask how many people see the value in standing areas - not if people want to stand themselves.

I actually think - from all the research that I've seen and all the reports and other documents I have - that I can make the below statements with a very high degree of confidence :

1. A significant minority of football supporters would like to have the opportunity to stand at matches in Tiers 1 and 2. I estimate this figures to be somewhere between 25% and 45% - depending on the club involved and their history and culture.

2. Despite the length of time since the Taylor Report and despite all the the efforts of the FLA, this demand to stand at matches in Tiers 1 and 2 shows no sign of decreasing.

3. An overwhelming majority of football supporters - whether they wish to stand themselves of not - would support the introduction of safe-standing areas to allow those who do wish to stand to do so without causing problems for those who don't want to or can't.

Finally, your last paragraph states "It is a pointless vote/poll because the authorities have made it clear that they are not interested at the moment."
What a pity Nelson Mandela or Gandhi didn't realise that - it would have saved them a whole lot of trouble...... The fact is that things can be changed, politically - governments change, ministers change, the political process does work - slowly, but it does work, and the opinion of politicians can be changed if you give them enough persuasive evidence. By necessity change needs to happen in stages , but it can be done, and I know for a fact that those involved in the campaign for safe standing are a group of highly committed, very politically skilled and extremely tenacious operators.

As an example of the fact that long-time opponents can be persuaded, I give you this : http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2020/2020094/mp_backs_calls_for_standing_areas_at_matches

I think we are essentially saying the same thing about the poll. It is not scientific - and for me that invalidates it.

We will have to disagree, at the moment, about whether the majority opinion is in favour of some standing areas. Where we can agree is about the significant minority who do want standing for themselves. I totally accept that there is a significant view in favour of some standing (I think me own sons fall into that minority). My view is, however, that the majority of football fans around the country are not really moved by this whole debate - and that also affects the validity of the polls because only the vociferous minority really bother itself to respond.

Your final comment merely goes to support my position. Mandela and Gandhi didn't just post on a meaningless poll - they actively pressured government. They were also fighting injustice, not a lifestyle choice - but then I am sure that you recognised that.[/b]

[working class hero]

Having a disability that prevents me from standing for long periods I am gradually coming round the idea of safe standing areas, having been opposed to them in the past. However, to my mind to be acceptable, a standing area must:
not be located in front of a seating area (unless on a lower tier):
be designed so that it would not be possible to have crowd surges, and
not cost less to spectate from than an equivalent seated part of the stadium.

I certainly agree with the first two parts of the post - they are givens in my mind.

Not sure I can agree with the last one, though - can I ask what your reasoning is in this? In my mind it's a good thing to bring down ticket prices if this can be done, although this certainly isn't the motivation behind my fervant support of safe-standing.

Standing used to be cheaper as the facilities were so poor. Often no roof or really horrible toilets etc.
If we accept that the facilities in modern stadia are as good wherever you go why drop prices for allowing people to do what they want to do. Indeed you could even charge a premium for the tiny minority who wish to stand - thus granting your wish and lowering prices for those who sit!

Prices could drop fractionally for all as more people could be fitted into the one area - although the ramifications for toilet and catering queues remain to be seen.

[Dirk Gently]

So unless you can give me a reason why Hobnob users aren't representative of Reading football supporters in general I'd say any poll on here is a pretty good indicator of their opinion. I don't think any internet survey can be properly scientific, but I do think this gives an overall non-scientific snapshot of views - without ever producing any figures that could ever be quoted in a scientific or authoritative way.

As to what the survey is about, as mentioned a few times it's to ask how many people see the value in standing areas - not if people want to stand themselves.

I actually think - from all the research that I've seen and all the reports and other documents I have - that I can make the below statements with a very high degree of confidence :

1. A significant minority of football supporters would like to have the opportunity to stand at matches in Tiers 1 and 2. I estimate this figures to be somewhere between 25% and 45% - depending on the club involved and their history and culture.

2. Despite the length of time since the Taylor Report and despite all the the efforts of the FLA, this demand to stand at matches in Tiers 1 and 2 shows no sign of decreasing.

3. An overwhelming majority of football supporters - whether they wish to stand themselves of not - would support the introduction of safe-standing areas to allow those who do wish to stand to do so without causing problems for those who don't want to or can't.

Finally, your last paragraph states "It is a pointless vote/poll because the authorities have made it clear that they are not interested at the moment."
What a pity Nelson Mandela or Gandhi didn't realise that - it would have saved them a whole lot of trouble...... The fact is that things can be changed, politically - governments change, ministers change, the political process does work - slowly, but it does work, and the opinion of politicians can be changed if you give them enough persuasive evidence. By necessity change needs to happen in stages , but it can be done, and I know for a fact that those involved in the campaign for safe standing are a group of highly committed, very politically skilled and extremely tenacious operators.

As an example of the fact that long-time opponents can be persuaded, I give you this : http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2020/2020094/mp_backs_calls_for_standing_areas_at_matches

I think we are essentially saying the same thing about the poll. It is not scientific - and for me that invalidates it.

We will have to disagree, at the moment, about whether the majority opinion is in favour of some standing areas. Where we can agree is about the significant minority who do want standing for themselves. I totally accept that there is a significant view in favour of some standing (I think me own sons fall into that minority). My view is, however, that the majority of football fans around the country are not really moved by this whole debate - and that also affects the validity of the polls because only the vociferous minority really bother itself to respond.

Your final comment merely goes to support my position. Mandela and Gandhi didn't just post on a meaningless poll - they actively pressured government. They were also fighting injustice, not a lifestyle choice - but then I am sure that you recognised that.[/b]

But all the polls - whiter scientific or unscientific - all say the same - an overwhelming majority of match-going supporters support the introduction of some kind of safe-standing areas, irrespective of whether they would use such areas themselves. For instance, the poll I posted on the "Standing at Tottenham" was a totally scientific poll :

Safe Standing Results Summary

Results produced by The Football Fans’ Census
12 January 2007
About The Survey
The national survey of 2,046 football fans was conducted by the Football Fans’ Census on behalf of ‘Safe Standing’ between 11 December 2006 and 6 January 2007. The survey was conducted online and supporters of 159 teams were represented including all clubs in the Premiership and Football League. 46% of respondents were season ticket holders.

About The Football Fans’ Census
The Football Fans’ Census is a football research organisation. It has over 100,000 registered member/users.

Tables of Findings
Source ‘Safe Standing Survey’ by the Football Fans’ Census. Sample size 2,046 football fans.

Q1. Should fans be given the freedom to choose whether they stand (in ‘safe-standing’ areas) or sit inside football grounds?
Yes 92%
No 7%
Don’t know 1%

Q2. Should ‘safe-standing’ areas be allowed in grounds?
Yes - it should be mandatory 27%
Yes - the option should be allowed 65%
No - ‘safe-standing’ shouldn’t be allowed 7%
Don’t know 1%

On your last paragraph, I can assure you that posting polls is the very least of what I've been doing on this subject. I spend an awful lot of time on this, and I can assure you that I am personally involved in actively pressurising government.

[West Stand Man]

I am delighted to hear it. Even if I do disagree with the targets of the campaign I respect anyone prepared to give up their own time for a cause.

[66DD]

Having a disability that prevents me from standing for long periods I am gradually coming round the idea of safe standing areas, having been opposed to them in the past. However, to my mind to be acceptable, a standing area must:
not be located in front of a seating area (unless on a lower tier):
be designed so that it would not be possible to have crowd surges, and
not cost less to spectate from than an equivalent seated part of the stadium.

I certainly agree with the first two parts of the post - they are givens in my mind.

Not sure I can agree with the last one, though - can I ask what your reasoning is in this? In my mind it's a good thing to bring down ticket prices if this can be done, although this certainly isn't the motivation behind my fervant support of safe-standing.

Standing used to be cheaper as the facilities were so poor. Often no roof or really horrible toilets etc.
If we accept that the facilities in modern stadia are as good wherever you go why drop prices for allowing people to do what they want to do. Indeed you could even charge a premium for the tiny minority who wish to stand - thus granting your wish and lowering prices for those who sit!

Prices could drop fractionally for all as more people could be fitted into the one area - although the ramifications for toilet and catering queues remain to be seen.

That was my reasoning as well, although I do not think that a premium is desirable. I envisage that the facilties would be the same and the view of the pitch virtually the same; so I consider that charging the same is equitable.

[Dirk Gently]

That was my reasoning as well, although I do not think that a premium is desirable. I envisage that the facilties would be the same and the view of the pitch virtually the same; so I consider that charging the same is equitable.

Fair enough - I took it to mean that you were against any price reduction for standing areas - equal pricing is fine for me.

And, perversely, that may be one of the factors which means the introduction of these areas - an increase in capacity due to standing areas would increase revenue and help defray the costs of conversion.

For the uninitiated, the way it works in terms of capacity is that, according to "The Green Guide," people standing take 1.1 times the width of people sitting, because they move around more. That's why standing in areas designed for seating means that walkways get blocked and that's why the FLA press for a 10% reduction for clubs who "persistently stand".

But, also according to "The Green Guide", when people are standing they take up about 50% of the depth of those seated - think of it as a row for the bums and a row for the legs.

So if you have a current row designed to seat 10 people, if you converted this to a safe standing area you could have two rows of 9 people - i.e. 18 people, or an 80% increase in capacity. This, of course, could mean an 80% increase in revenue for that area - and that's the sort of calculation which appeals to the moneymen who run football these days.

[Factfinder]

Yes but only for the young.

[madreadingfan]

Reading should have a standing section would create a much better atmosphere too

[The 17 Bus]

Real safe standing would have metal rails to stand in with a walkway behind each to allow access, no surges possible, each fan to have there own numbered area, I am not sure that the idea of having more people in the same space is a good idea.

[Matt de K]

United seemed to have a safe standing area on Saturday

[working class hero]

United seemed to have a safe standing area on Saturday

The Heysel stadium 'seemed' to be safe until it wasn't.
Hillsborough 'seemed' to be safe
Bradford and Ibrox 'seemed' to be safe.

Perceptions of fans may not be realities.

[Baines]

United seemed to have a safe standing area on Saturday

The Heysel stadium 'seemed' to be safe until it wasn't.
Hillsborough 'seemed' to be safe
Bradford and Ibrox 'seemed' to be safe.

Perceptions of fans may not be realities.

You seem to have missed Matt's point somewhat...

[Skin]

United seemed to have a safe standing area on Saturday

The Heysel stadium 'seemed' to be safe until it wasn't.
Hillsborough 'seemed' to be safe
Bradford and Ibrox 'seemed' to be safe.

Perceptions of fans may not be realities.

You seem to have missed Matt's point somewhat...

'Somewhat' is an understatement. This miss can be measured by miles..

[Dirk Gently]

United seemed to have a safe standing area on Saturday

The Heysel stadium 'seemed' to be safe until it wasn't.
Hillsborough 'seemed' to be safe
Bradford and Ibrox 'seemed' to be safe.

Perceptions of fans may not be realities.

Indeed - but at all of them there were other factors apart from standing which caused the disaster - and, of course, Bradford was in the main stand, which was all seated accommodation. But a common factor at 3 of them is poor/no ground maintenance, whilst at Hillsborough the major factors were fences and Police incompetence.


But, for the record, I don't support standing in areas designed for seating - I support separate safe-standing areas, custom-designed for standing.

[Andy M]

The Heysel stadium 'seemed' to be safe until it wasn't.
Hillsborough 'seemed' to be safe
Bradford and Ibrox 'seemed' to be safe

They weren't safe though, Heysel was a crumbling wreck of a stadium and Hillsborough simply not fit for purpose.

Nobody even checked to see if the ground had a valid safety certifcate; it transpired that the one they did hold was ten years out of date. There were many reasons why Hillsborough should not have hosted the FA Cup Final but nobody bothered to check...

[Silver Fox]

There were many reasons why Hillsborough should not have hosted the FA Cup Final

The main one being that they'd already booked Wembley

[madreadingfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yHbDAz2Sc
found it very interesting and some very interesting facts!!