Safe-Standing petition

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

Apologies if answered but would safe standing increase capacity of stadiums such as ours? Looking at the sample shown here it looks not as you are given an allocated seat.

If memory serves (and Dirk can will either back this up or refute it), it can increase the capacity of an area of a stand by 80%:

One row of 10 seats = 10 people
One row of 10 "legrooms" for aforemetioned seats = 0 people

2 rows of safe-standing in the same area => 9 "safe-standing spots" per row (IIRC a standing person takes up more horizontal space than a seated person) = 18 people

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Attendances have held up remarkably well over the credit crunch and I just don't see how any club is incentivized to bring it in?

With the right pricing, it would draw in the crowds.

[Divvy]

Attendances have held up remarkably well over the credit crunch and I just don't see how any club is incentivized to bring it in?

With the right pricing, it would draw in the crowds.

A lot of clubs have invited the FSF to their stadiums to look at the possibility of safe standing in the future. Reading are included in that, as are Aston Villa amongst many others. It will eventually come in, and it'll only be a small section of any stadium I suspect, as many do now like the 'luxury' of sitting. Reading, boasting all of their leg room, will still need to spend a considerable amount to accommodate safe-standing, but expressed a great deal of interest in the prospect of one day bringing it here to the Madejski Stadium. I would imagine it would be the lower third or at most, half, of the East and North stands - all speculation on my part. I would certainly welcome the choice, and more so would snap up a season-ticket for all standing, even if it meant having to swap Y26 for the North stand.

One day...

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

(IIRC a standing person takes up more horizontal space than a seated person)

I think that stat was one of the many nonsense anti-terracing arguments put forward by the FLA, insisting bringing back terracing would cause capacities to drop.

I think the typical ratio (in the 90s) was more like 1.5 people standing for every 1 seated, when based purely on area. The 2:1 figures tend to come from areas that have been converted to seats from a terrace, where the seat takes up two terrace steps, but those two terrace steps are typically bigger than the one step in a seated area.

[larry1971]

Attendances have held up remarkably well over the credit crunch and I just don't see how any club is incentivized to bring it in?

With the right pricing, it would draw in the crowds.

probably being an old cynic but I have my doubts that clubs would reduce prices for standing tickets that much.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Attendances have held up remarkably well over the credit crunch and I just don't see how any club is incentivized to bring it in?

With the right pricing, it would draw in the crowds.

probably being an old cynic but I have my doubts that clubs would reduce prices for standing tickets that much.

Yep. You only have to look at the league grounds where standing is allowed to see that the idea that terracing would see the return of getting in for £10 is just nonsense. At premier league prices, you'd probably be looking at £35 for a seat and £30 to stand.

[who are ya?]

the return of getting in for £10 is just nonsense.

Nobody says it will bring back the prices of yesteryear for fcuk sake, that's just ridiculous. If it did only mean a fiver off at the most, that's giving me an extra beer and an improved matchday experience, ta very much

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

(IIRC a standing person takes up more horizontal space than a seated person)

I think that stat was one of the many nonsense anti-terracing arguments put forward by the FLA, insisting bringing back terracing would cause capacities to drop.

I think the typical ratio (in the 90s) was more like 1.5 people standing for every 1 seated, when based purely on area. The 2:1 figures tend to come from areas that have been converted to seats from a terrace, where the seat takes up two terrace steps, but those two terrace steps are typically bigger than the one step in a seated area.

As I said, this was from memory - pretty sure the 18 standees vs 10 sitting is correct though.

Where's Dirk when you need him?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

To answer the last question - at a FSF meeting in Manchester.

To answer the questions about capacity of safe-standing : Look at the steps in this picture :



Where you get one row of people sitting (because of the length of their thighs & feet when sitting) you can get two rows when standing - hence the intermediate step.

But people standing are a little bit "wider" than people sitting (as they move from side to side more), so the formula is, as posted above, an increase in capacity of 80% (2 rows of 9 standing take the same space as 1 row of 10 sitting, 18 rather than 10.)

To clear up another couple of points :

- the "seats in the above picture are hardly ever used and are irrelevant to the use of this area as a safe-standing area. They're locked in that upright position and not available to the supporter to use when this is a safe-standing area. They're only there so that if the ground hosts a European or World Cup tie the seats can be used with the lower capacity. So it's important to understand that this are is EITHER a safe-standing OR a seated area. It's NOT a standing area where people get an optional seat if they want to sit there.

- Regarding safe-standing at the the MadStad, the current rake of the stands makes it very difficult to implement these areas without major work. So it's not going to happen soon - but there's the prospect of the stadium expansion coming up, so if the law is changed by that time then there are real possibilities.

As to where ... opinions are divided on this. The North SStand would be a good idea, and there'd be real noise from there if it happened and also fewer flashpoints with away supporters so that's a good idea, but personally I like the concept that Archibald Leach had all those years ago - a standing "paddock" in front of a main stand. So I'd like to see the first 10 rows or so of the East Stand safe-standing areas, then the rows behind sitting rows (of course, you'd need to lose a couple of rows because of sight-lines, but the additional capacity would compensate for that. Personal opinion, but I think that'd be brilliant and create a great atmosphere all along the ground.

[larry1971]

As to where ... opinions are divided on this. The North SStand would be a good idea, and there'd be real noise from there if it happened and also fewer flashpoints with away supporters so that's a good idea, but personally I like the concept that Archibald Leach had all those years ago - a standing "paddock" in front of a main stand. So I'd like to see the first 10 rows or so of the East Stand safe-standing areas, then the rows behind sitting rows (of course, you'd need to lose a couple of rows because of sight-lines, but the additional capacity would compensate for that. Personal opinion, but I think that'd be brilliant and create a great atmosphere all along the ground.

but what about the adverse impact it would have on the disabled sections ? if you allowed safe standing then it could only be done from a line behind the disabled sections as any where in front would meen that disabled fans like myself would be unable to see the game because our view would be obstructed by people standing up. Also because of the design of the stadium there is simply no way the disabled sections could be moved to the front of the stands so as to allow safe standing behind them . I normally sit in the noth stand but once last season had to sit in the disabled section in the corner of the south and main stands and even with seating I could see hardly anything of the near side of the pitch in the other half so again making the front tier of the main stand seating is a non starter due to the effect it would have on the corner disabled sections.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

As to where ... opinions are divided on this. The North SStand would be a good idea, and there'd be real noise from there if it happened and also fewer flashpoints with away supporters so that's a good idea, but personally I like the concept that Archibald Leach had all those years ago - a standing "paddock" in front of a main stand. So I'd like to see the first 10 rows or so of the East Stand safe-standing areas, then the rows behind sitting rows (of course, you'd need to lose a couple of rows because of sight-lines, but the additional capacity would compensate for that. Personal opinion, but I think that'd be brilliant and create a great atmosphere all along the ground.

but what about the adverse impact it would have on the disabled sections ? if you allowed safe standing then it could only be done from a line behind the disabled sections as any where in front would meen that disabled fans like myself would be unable to see the game because our view would be obstructed by people standing up. Also because of the design of the stadium there is simply no way the disabled sections could be moved to the front of the stands so as to allow safe standing behind them . I normally sit in the noth stand but once last season had to sit in the disabled section in the corner of the south and main stands and even with seating I could see hardly anything of the near side of the pitch in the other half so again making the front tier of the main stand seating is a non starter due to the effect it would have on the corner disabled sections.

Hence me saying quite clearly " you'd need to lose a couple of rows because of sight-lines" - the first rows behind the standing area would need to be at least 6 feet higher than the last row of the standing area.

But of course, there'd have to be proper, DDA-compliant, disabled areas - don't think I was presenting a finished design, it is purely a concept!

[West Stand Man]

It is also important to note that you could have a standing area next to a seated area. The standing bodiues will block the sideways view of the seated people. Thus, if you have the standing area at the front of a stand it must occupy the full width of the stand. For that reason I suspect that Reading would need to either;
- make the whole front of the East Stand a standing area so that the extended part could be built to suit; or
- make the standing area behind one (or both) goals.

Which raises another oncern. How do you give the away team a standing option.
My thought is therefore, that you would actually need to make the standing area at the back of the stand so that the standing fans are looking over the tops of the seated ones. Much more flexible.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It is also important to note that you could have a standing area next to a seated area. The standing bodiues will block the sideways view of the seated people. Thus, if you have the standing area at the front of a stand it must occupy the full width of the stand. For that reason I suspect that Reading would need to either;
- make the whole front of the East Stand a standing area so that the extended part could be built to suit; or
- make the standing area behind one (or both) goals.

Which raises another oncern. How do you give the away team a standing option.
My thought is therefore, that you would actually need to make the standing area at the back of the stand so that the standing fans are looking over the tops of the seated ones. Much more flexible.

I agree. The standing behind seating is an easier option, but maybe it's just because I'm a traditionalist that I prefer the "paddock" at the front. I don't pretend to have the answers for the optimum solution in the stadium, though, and that's a long way down the line.

First there has to be a change to the law - or a temporary suspension - to allow proper trials to be carried out. Because if that can be done all of the practicalities can be resolved in action and all of the questions, stereotypes and suppositions can be confirmed or proved wrong once and for all. But at the moment we can't even get that far.

[MouldyRoyal]

Didn't realise Reading were looking into standing, that's positive. I expected, in my cynicism of Reading's marketing team, that they'd be greatly opposed to the idea.

I'm in support of the proposals and would definitely have my season ticket in a standing area if it became legal.

[Geekins]

Didn't realise Reading were looking into standing, that's positive. I expected, in my cynicism of Reading's marketing team, that they'd be greatly opposed to the idea.

I'm in support of the proposals and would definitely have my season ticket in a standing area if it became legal.

^ This

[West Stand Man]

At risk of setting a match to petrol....

Even if there is no obvious linkage (as is so often argued by those in favour of standing), the recent hiatus over the Hillsborough affair will not make it easy for any law change just yet. It would be a brave governement that stuck its neck out to make a change to allow standing again in the current climate.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't make sense to relate the Hillsborough incident to modern standing - but that is where politicians are likely to go.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

At risk of setting a match to petrol....

Even if there is no obvious linkage (as is so often argued by those in favour of standing), the recent hiatus over the Hillsborough affair will not make it easy for any law change just yet. It would be a brave governement that stuck its neck out to make a change to allow standing again in the current climate.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't make sense to relate the Hillsborough incident to modern standing - but that is where politicians are likely to go.

I don't think so. The one thing that has not been mentioned in all of the Hillsborough stuff over the past few days is standing - for me the new findings put even more distance between Hillsborough and standing. Even Lord Justice Taylor stated that Hillsborough was not caused by standing, but he then included all-seater stadia provisions in is report, for some reason ...

But it's also clear from the Hillsborough Papers that forcing stadia to go all-seater was on part of the Government's agenda, alongside ID Cards for supporters, long before Taylor convened. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1989/may/17/football-stadiums-1

[larry1971]

At risk of setting a match to petrol....

Even if there is no obvious linkage (as is so often argued by those in favour of standing), the recent hiatus over the Hillsborough affair will not make it easy for any law change just yet. It would be a brave governement that stuck its neck out to make a change to allow standing again in the current climate.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that it doesn't make sense to relate the Hillsborough incident to modern standing - but that is where politicians are likely to go.

I'm not sure if the all seater stadium laws only covered English grounds or if those in Scotland were also included but I do believe that the SPL is now looking into the possibility of allowing safe standing . Most of the stadiums built after Hillsborough are all pretty much built to the same look and design and personally I think it would be difficult (but not impossible) to convert sections to safe standing. Certainly grounds like Craven Cottage and Loftus Road that have both had seating bolted onto the old terracing could easily convert back to safe standing as could those clubs who built new stands that had a clear ddivde of tiers [the lower tier being seperated by executive boxes].

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I'm not sure if the all seater stadium laws only covered English grounds or if those in Scotland were also included but I do believe that the SPL is now looking into the possibility of allowing safe standing . Most of the stadiums built after Hillsborough are all pretty much built to the same look and design and personally I think it would be difficult (but not impossible) to convert sections to safe standing. Certainly grounds like Craven Cottage and Loftus Road that have both had seating bolted onto the old terracing could easily convert back to safe standing as could those clubs who built new stands that had a clear ddivde of tiers [the lower tier being seperated by executive boxes].

The legalities in Scotland are slightly different - as they have devolved powers in some areas the Scottish Assembly has the power to make an executive order setting aside the legistalation, but, in fact, a similar thing could happen in England for a trail basis - it wouldn't necessary need a full-blown change in the law.

What the politicians do, really, is what football wants them to do, and historically the message has been that "no-one in football wants to change except the supporters". Setting aside the obvious fact that the supporters are just about the most relevant stakeholders in this case, that is changing - clubs like Villa, Derby, Peterborough and many others are coming out in favour of a trial, so once that is realised in government (and it is starting to be realised) then there will be change.

[larry1971]

I'm not sure if the all seater stadium laws only covered English grounds or if those in Scotland were also included but I do believe that the SPL is now looking into the possibility of allowing safe standing . Most of the stadiums built after Hillsborough are all pretty much built to the same look and design and personally I think it would be difficult (but not impossible) to convert sections to safe standing. Certainly grounds like Craven Cottage and Loftus Road that have both had seating bolted onto the old terracing could easily convert back to safe standing as could those clubs who built new stands that had a clear ddivde of tiers [the lower tier being seperated by executive boxes].

The legalities in Scotland are slightly different - as they have devolved powers in some areas the Scottish Assembly has the power to make an executive order setting aside the legistalation, but, in fact, a similar thing could happen in England for a trail basis - it wouldn't necessary need a full-blown change in the law.

What the politicians do, really, is what football wants them to do, and historically the message has been that "no-one in football wants to change except the supporters". Setting aside the obvious fact that the supporters are just about the most relevant stakeholders in this case, that is changing - clubs like Villa, Derby, Peterborough and many others are coming out in favour of a trial, so once that is realised in government (and it is starting to be realised) then there will be change.

well as you said it's going to take a brave government to change the law and with the renewed anger following the Hillsborough report and Cameron, making a public appology for what happened any decision to allow a trial period of safe standing won't happen any time soon - ..