Standing at home games.

[weybridgewanderer]

But is there a law that says fans can't stand in an all-seater stadium. Is that the decision of the club to allow that or the FA?

It is a requirement of the safety certificate issued by the local authority

Attitudes to standing are also influenced by the attitude of the local authority. Some local authorities threaten clubs if the fans do not sit down or they are not seen to take an agressive stance against persistent standing that they will revoke the safety certificate.

[Terminal Boardom]

Try this

http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=87261&start=80&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=hillsborough

Go to Page 5.

One simple question; who pays for the conversion?

[Dirk Gently]

Try this

http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=87261&start=80&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=hillsborough

Go to Page 5.

One simple question; who pays for the conversion?

In that very thread, I say :

As long as a stadium is adaptable and at capacity, then it's quite easy to get round the economic argument. According to "The Green Guide", you can get safely get 18 people standing into the space required for 10 people when they're sitting. The rationale for that is that people standing move are 10% "wider" (they move sideways more) so you can only get 9 in a row which would take ten seated - but those 9 people, when seated, effectively require a row for the legs and a row for the bums, so you can get two sows of 9 standing where you had 1 row of ten sitting.

At capacity, that means a club could get 80% extra yield from that space , which could easily pay for conversion costs.

At the MadStad, it could be done quite easily - think of the "one row into two" idea, and simply put an intermediate step, half the depth, in where the seats are. Voilà!

(Having said that, I think the rake means this will only work at the lower levels, where the rake is less steep - but having the first 10 rows or so standing with seating behind it would be a glorious return to Archibald Leitch's initial design of paddock and stand!)

[Russell Street]

a glorious return to Archibald Leitch's initial design of paddock and stand!

Amen to that!

[Terminal Boardom]

It would take quite en extensive rebuild to have to cater for the additional numbers in the concourses. Assuming it happened of course. And I echo the references to Archibald Leitch. Essential toilet reading for anyone is any of the fine books by Simon Inglis on football stadia. Elm Park - Least interesting ground in the country!

[Dirk Gently]

It would take quite en extensive rebuild to have to cater for the additional numbers in the concourses. Assuming it happened of course.

True, but at the moment the legislation prevents that - if nothing else it would be good for the law to allow that to happen for newbuilds and conversions.

[Magnus]

Reading fans. Sitting down since 1874.

What did they do the first 3 years of the clubs existance?

Stand?

There weren't any seats. Not sure about replica shirts and fleeces.

[Royalshow]

Has an incident ever happened with people standing in front of seats? if not then why can't it simply be a standing section in an all seater ground. You could still buy a 'seat' but just be warned that 'supporters may wish to stand in this section of the ground'. Use red seats or what ever.

[Terminal Boardom]

But the whole point of the argument has to be whether or not football supporters can be trusted with terracing or standing areas. The reason that all seater stadia were introduced was because football clubs shirked their responsibilities. Don't get me wrong, I used to love standing on the South Bank and on the Tilehurst End. There is much more of a community feel on a terrace. But can you imagine the outcry if there was just one fatal incident associated with standing? Is it really worth that risk?

[Dirk Gently]

Has an incident ever happened with people standing in front of seats? if not then why can't it simply be a standing section in an all seater ground. You could still buy a 'seat' but just be warned that 'supporters may wish to stand in this section of the ground'. Use red seats or what ever.

If there is to be standing, it has to be in a areas custom-designed for standing. Although the risk of any accidents is minimal, it has to be slightly increased in areas designed for all-seating.

[Russell Street]

If it is so unsafe then why is it that you can stand and watch a band in the very same football stadiums that you can't stand and watch a football match?

I'm more likely to be jumping around watching a band than at a football match, but hey, that's OK. Oh, and while I'm at it I can carry on drinking too...

[Wimb]

But the whole point of the argument has to be whether or not football supporters can be trusted with terracing or standing areas. The reason that all seater stadia were introduced was because football clubs shirked their responsibilities. Don't get me wrong, I used to love standing on the South Bank and on the Tilehurst End. There is much more of a community feel on a terrace. But can you imagine the outcry if there was just one fatal incident associated with standing? Is it really worth that risk?

It's a solid argument however you only need to see some of the surges and movement that occur during some games when a team scores/controversial decision to realise that there WILL be some fatality at some stage or another at an all seater stadium.

The argument is redundant anyway as the injuries/deaths on the terraces were every bit to do with HOW MANY people were on them and how they were controlled more then if they were standing or not.

If 60,000 people can be trusted to stand at Reading Festival with minimal stewarding I fail to see how it's unsafe for 1500 to stand in a regulated CCTV monitored stadium....

[westendgirl]

Has an incident ever happened with people standing in front of seats? if not then why can't it simply be a standing section in an all seater ground. You could still buy a 'seat' but just be warned that 'supporters may wish to stand in this section of the ground'. Use red seats or what ever.

If there is to be standing, it has to be in a areas custom-designed for standing. Although the risk of any accidents is minimal, it has to be slightly increased in areas designed for all-seating.

And given what you have posted before would mean only 9 people for 10 seats, not attractive to the club unless they charge more?

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Don't think standing in front of seats en mass would be at all safe, the seat in front would be at about knee height, and would be easy to topple forwards in times of excitement, you would need a barrier at least at waist height, and all the way along IMHO. Bit like those at EP

[Terminal Boardom]

Without wanting to come across as a bore... the whole point of the argument has to be whether or not football supporters can be trusted with terracing or standing areas. Comparing football crowds with crowds that go to a concert is not fair.

[Dirk Gently]

If it is so unsafe then why is it that you can stand and watch a band in the very same football stadiums that you can't stand and watch a football match?

I'm more likely to be jumping around watching a band than at a football match, but hey, that's OK. Oh, and while I'm at it I can carry on drinking too...

As you can at a London Irish rugby match in exactly the same seat that you were deemed unsafe to stand at (or drink alcohol at) if the ball being kicked is round - a clear case of the assumption that football supporters are automatically criminals.

You are, of course, also technically "safe" when standing on a crowded InterCity125 train doing 90mph between Reading and Paddington, but not when standing in front of a completely stationary seat at a football match.

You are actually legally "safe when" standing at football matches - but only during "periods of excitement", and not "persistently" - which are, of course the times when there are most likely to crowd surges, etc.

The whole law is utterly ludicrous and riddled with paradoxes - and I feel sorry for the poor stewards and ground authorities who are pressured into putting such unenforceable regulations into effect.

PS - statistically, the periods of greatest danger to football supporters, when they are most likely to suffer an accident, is when they are entering or leaving the stadium. The biggest single source of injury amongst attendees at football matches is "scalding by hot liquids".

[Dirk Gently]

Without wanting to come across as a bore... the whole point of the argument has to be whether or not football supporters can be trusted with terracing or standing areas. Comparing football crowds with crowds that go to a concert is not fair.

In some ways yes - but analysis of these arguments just shows that the current standing regulations are about assumptions of criminalisation and methods of control of football supporters rather than actually being about safety.

[Terminal Boardom]

PS - statistically, the periods of greatest danger to football supporters, when they are most likely to suffer an accident, is when they are entering or leaving the stadium. The biggest single source of injury amongst attendees at football matches is "scalding by hot liquids".

I swear I saw someone treated recently by the medics at the Mad Stad. Yawned so much he dislocated his jaw

Dirk. I enjoy your contributions to threads like this.

We have a general election this year. No doubt there will be politicians and their little bands of workers knocking on doors, handing out leaflets etc. Why don't the genuine football fans try and articulate to these people for the need to open up a dialogue with regard to the introduction of safe standing areas as clearly demonstrated in the German stadia images posted above.

[Russell Street]

Without wanting to come across as a bore... the whole point of the argument has to be whether or not football supporters can be trusted with terracing or standing areas. Comparing football crowds with crowds that go to a concert is not fair.

OK. Then the all-seater policy arose from Lord Justice Taylor's Report into the Hillsborough disaster. That wasn't a case of supporters being untrustworthy, and it didn't happen because they were standing. It arose from bad management of crowd control.

And why is it deemed safe to stand at lower league matches but not at a Championship/Premier League match? I presume the excuse is numbers of bodies, but this could be 'controlled' through having safe standing areas which are still 'policed'.

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 are too many double standards. There is not enough evidence that it is 'safer' to sit than stand. The safe standing areas in Germany are working well and I don't see why we can't introduce them too.

EDIT: There are fans working at the very concept of getting the regualtions changed so that if wanted, safe standing areas can be introduced. The Liberal Dems have already publicly backed plans to change the regs. The others are being worked on. You just have to be bit of an activist...

[Dirk Gently]

We have a general election this year. No doubt there will be politicians and their little bands of workers knocking on doors, handing out leaflets etc. Why don't the genuine football fans try and articulate to these people for the need to open up a dialogue with regard to the introduction of safe standing areas as clearly demonstrated in the German stadia images posted above.

Thanks - I hope I do add something to the debate.

On the political side, a lot certainly is happening, and the election is being targeted.

For instance, the LibDem conference passing a resolution in favour of safe standing last year - whilst they're never going to get power, this is an important move because it breaks the traditional 3-party consensus on this so it can become a debate and an election issue. I've actually got a similar resolution proposed for the Labour Party conference - but it's 99.99% certain to be spiked by someone before it gets that far.

But there are all sorts of political moves going on - many of them are in the background so they don't get publicity - and, in fact, publicity would probably kill them off. There are a whole host of extremely talented and extremely committed people beavering away to change things, and personally I'm under no doubt that change will come.

I think of it like breaking down a damn - we're slowly chipping away at all the arguments, one by one, and eventually we'll have weakened all of the arguments against us so much that the whole ludicrous edifice will come crashing down.