Safe standing progress

[tmesis]

The last thing we need to do is encourage yet worse behaviour from football fans. Very much hope this goes absolutely nowhere.

Make the home terracing at the opposite end from the away fans, and you probably reduce trouble by no longer having a flashpoint where the more boisterous home fans are only a short divide from the away fans.

[Top Flight]

Is safe standing really taking over the world ?
Is it not essentially a UK issue ?
Are there many other countries where football grounds are compelled legally to be all seater ? For European grounds it is only European games that require seating so they come at this from the opposite angle (how do we make our terraces work as seated areas for a small number of games ).
I'm not sure how often the UK situation of converting seated stadia into standing ones crops up elsewhere.

easier to google than ponder

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/stadium ... areas.html

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features ... -sidelines

The Americans are really starting to see why the rest of the world love soccer so much. From the athletic business article, this paragraph I think is quite important:

"These are dynamics that can't be easily duplicated elsewhere. "The product in your home — watching it on television — has gotten so good that you have to have things in the stadium that are unique," says Kaval, adding that guests in his president's suite often want to get close to the standing section, if only to experience it for a few minutes. "You can't just rely on a seat and a hot dog vendor. It's not like it was in 1979. You have to compete with the at-home experience in a way that's different, and I think with the younger millennial-type folks it's these experiences that are shared with friends and family members that can carry the day. And that's really been one of the keys to our success here at Avaya Stadium."

Talking about standing. Watching the game from a seat in the stadium versus watching the game from your armchair at home. Remember QPR at home last season which was on Sky TV. The attendance that night was appalling. Of course the weather was bad, but watching in the stadium couldn't compete with watching from your comfy armchair at home. However, if there was a standing section and a partisan home crowd giving it large on the terraces, more people might have made an effort. I remember the lengths that I used to go to to watch Reading matches on the terraces of Elm Park for midweek matches. Nowadays, I don't think I can be ars*ed to go to the same lengths to get to the Mad Stad for a game such is the dullness of the atmosphere and inferiority of the matchday experience compared to good old Elm Park.

[Maneki Neko]

even last year during our relative success the atmosphere was pretty awful
(odd game aside.)

and it was the atmosphere/songs/bantz that made me enjoy games and want to follow reading in the first place.

its amazing anyone comes back after their first visit to the madejski nowadays imo

[Muskrat]

The last thing we need to do is encourage yet worse behaviour from football fans. Very much hope this goes absolutely nowhere.

Make the home terracing at the opposite end from the away fans, and you probably reduce trouble by no longer having a flashpoint where the more boisterous home fans are only a short divide from the away fans.

Hmm interesting. However I suspect those "boisterous" fans as you describe them might foil that cunning ruse by just staying where they currently are in the Y26 seats

[tmesis]

The last thing we need to do is encourage yet worse behaviour from football fans. Very much hope this goes absolutely nowhere.

Make the home terracing at the opposite end from the away fans, and you probably reduce trouble by no longer having a flashpoint where the more boisterous home fans are only a short divide from the away fans.

Hmm interesting. However I suspect those "boisterous" fans as you describe them might foil that cunning ruse by just staying where they currently are in the Y26 seats

They could, but the suggestion was that bringing back terracing would lead to more crowd trouble in stadiums. I'm just pointing out that that wouldn't be true if you took the precaution of not having the terracing right next to the away fans. It'd make it at worst, no worse than now.

[West Stand Man]

The last thing we need to do is encourage yet worse behaviour from football fans. Very much hope this goes absolutely nowhere.

Make the home terracing at the opposite end from the away fans, and you probably reduce trouble by no longer having a flashpoint where the more boisterous home fans are only a short divide from the away fans.

Hmm interesting. However I suspect those "boisterous" fans as you describe them might foil that cunning ruse by just staying where they currently are in the Y26 seats

They could indeed. And those 'grumpy' stewards could more forcefully apply the no standing rules in that area and eject them. Swings and roundabouts. Once you win the battle for proper standing areas you are committed to accepting the seated areas.

[STAR Liaison]

Also the idea of just adding rail seats would also reduce the capacity as you need more room to stand than sit so you lose 10% of capcaity.

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

[CountryRoyal]

I believe the rule is that a club promoted into the relevant tiers has a fixed period of time to meet the all seater rule (EFL membership criteria state it must happen by the start of the club's 4th season in the champ.)
It's likely that where a club has a new ground on the horizon then they might get an extension on the time.
Obviously if a club got promoted and then relegated they would not have been made to go all seater, but I doubt many clubs decided to get relegated just to avoid putting seats in

Ah thank you for clearing it up Nameless. Makes perfectly logical sense I suppose. Obviously Brentford have got their new stadium coming soon, think next season is penultimate?

(Also meant Burton not Barnet )

[tmesis]

Also the idea of just adding rail seats would also reduce the capacity as you need more room to stand than sit so you lose 10% of capcaity.

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For a start, you have the depth of two standing rows anyway in a seated row.

And secondly, people don't "tend to move" when they are standing. Everyone here, I'm sure, has been to plenty of games where people have stood - sometimes for the whole match - in seated sections. At no time have they felt that they've got less room standing.

It's just one of those FLA arguments they pluck out of their backsides to try to deter people.

It really ought to be blindingly obvious that in nations that have rail seats that double up as terraces, they increase capacity when they are in terrace mode. They don't cut capacity because people supposedly take up more room.

[Nobby Royal]

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For a start, you have the depth of two standing rows anyway in a seated row.

And secondly, people don't "tend to move" when they are standing. Everyone here, I'm sure, has been to plenty of games where people have stood - sometimes for the whole match - in seated sections. At no time have they felt that they've got less room standing.

It's just one of those FLA arguments they pluck out of their backsides to try to deter people.

It really ought to be blindingly obvious that in nations that have rail seats that double up as terraces, they increase capacity when they are in terrace mode. They don't cut capacity because people supposedly take up more room.

Exactly. And where did Star Liaison get the argument that the back of the stands was too steep?

Is Reading steeper than everywhere else? And are the fans who stand at the back now, safe without a barrier in front of them, but unsafe with a barrier?

So the yellow wall at Dortmund is ok yet a few Reading fans at the back of the North Stand are somehow going to cause terrible danger?

[LWJ]

So the yellow wall at Dortmund (IN GERMANY) is ok yet a few Reading fans at the back of the North Stand(IN ENGLAND) are somehow going to cause terrible danger?

The stands at Reading are a lot steeper than most in the uk as well, judging from experience.

[Nameless]

And obviously the fans who currently stand without barriers are not safer than people standing with barriers.
They are also not safer than people who sit down, which is the easily available, low cost, legal, practical option currently.....

[STAR Liaison]

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

For a start, you have the depth of two standing rows anyway in a seated row.

And secondly, people don't "tend to move" when they are standing. Everyone here, I'm sure, has been to plenty of games where people have stood - sometimes for the whole match - in seated sections. At no time have they felt that they've got less room standing.

It's just one of those FLA arguments they pluck out of their backsides to try to deter people.

It really ought to be blindingly obvious that in nations that have rail seats that double up as terraces, they increase capacity when they are in terrace mode. They don't cut capacity because people supposedly take up more room.

Exactly. And where did Star Liaison get the argument that the back of the stands was too steep?

Is Reading steeper than everywhere else? And are the fans who stand at the back now, safe without a barrier in front of them, but unsafe with a barrier?

So the yellow wall at Dortmund is ok yet a few Reading fans at the back of the North Stand are somehow going to cause terrible danger?

Don't shoot the messenger, this is all according to the Green Book, which is the source of all the rules for stadium use. It may be different in Germany, I don't know about their Grun Buch.

[Snowflake Royal]

Also the idea of just adding rail seats would also reduce the capacity as you need more room to stand than sit so you lose 10% of capcaity.

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

All the information I've seen presented is that safe standing adds about 80% to capacity (which seems a little high to me), not reduces capacity to 80% or the original. So forgive me if I don't believe you.

[tmesis]

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

All the information I've seen presented is that safe standing adds about 80% to capacity (which seems a little high to me), not reduces capacity to 80% or the original. So forgive me if I don't believe you.

It's as I guessed. The green guide is the set of ground regulations created by the anti-terracing FLA a few years back, whose consistent policy has been to resolutely oppose any moves towards standing. They happily use completely nonsensical reasoning to "back up" their view, and refuse to enter into any debate.

They also, for example, maintain the idea that standing in seated areas is dangerous, due to the high risk of there being an avalanche of fans if a standing fan fell into the next row. While fans have fallen into the next row before, there's nothing to suggest this lethal avalanche is likely to happen.

They also argue against the example of safe of terraces in other countries on the grounds that they haven't been proven to work here, and unless they are proven here, they won't be convinced, which is a handy "Catch 22" for them, seeing as we can't prove they work here, as we aren't allowed to have them. The safe existence of terracing in other divisions and other sports doesn't count as proof.

The "reduction in capacity" is just another deeply flawed idea that they use to try to prevent moves towards rail seating.

[STAR Liaison]

Why on earth would you need more room to stand rather than sit?

That sounds like on of those stupid clueless FLA ideas that has no basis at all in reality.

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

All the information I've seen presented is that safe standing adds about 80% to capacity (which seems a little high to me), not reduces capacity to 80% or the original. So forgive me if I don't believe you.

That assumes you have 2 rows standing in place of 1 sitting. The maths works 2 x 90% is 180%

[STAR Liaison]

Standing you need more room as you tend to move, there is more capacity where you can have 2 rows standing in the space for one sitting, but that is not the case with the rail seating as you have one row only.

All the information I've seen presented is that safe standing adds about 80% to capacity (which seems a little high to me), not reduces capacity to 80% or the original. So forgive me if I don't believe you.

It's as I guessed. The green guide is the set of ground regulations created by the anti-terracing FLA a few years back, whose consistent policy has been to resolutely oppose any moves towards standing. They happily use completely nonsensical reasoning to "back up" their view, and refuse to enter into any debate.

They also, for example, maintain the idea that standing in seated areas is dangerous, due to the high risk of there being an avalanche of fans if a standing fan fell into the next row. While fans have fallen into the next row before, there's nothing to suggest this lethal avalanche is likely to happen.

They also argue against the example of safe of terraces in other countries on the grounds that they haven't been proven to work here, and unless they are proven here, they won't be convinced, which is a handy "Catch 22" for them, seeing as we can't prove they work here, as we aren't allowed to have them. The safe existence of terracing in other divisions and other sports doesn't count as proof.

The "reduction in capacity" is just another deeply flawed idea that they use to try to prevent moves towards rail seating.

It is no longer the FLA that comes up with these figures it is SGSA (Sports Ground Safety Authority) and from all the information I have had from the Safety Advisory Group they are not against standing at all. As I said earlier it needs a politician to be brave enough to make it happen - and every time it is mentioned the media ask Hillborough relatives what they think, completing ignoring the diferences in standing then and now let alone that standing was not relevant to the disaster.

However the steepness of the area above the entrances in the Mad Stad is more than is suggested by the SGSA so any standing would not be at the back of the stands unless the SGSA change their directives as the council would not issue a safety certificate.

[tmesis]

The steepness criteria is reasonable, and although I have stood on some pretty steep terracing in my time, I don't think any are as steep as the back half of the Madejski seating.

Even if for argument's sake though, that people are more prepared to be cosier with regards to how close they are to the person next to them when seated compared to standing, the "reduced capacity" idea is based on not realising you can fit more rows of people into a terrace. If it's a genuine oversight, it's a pretty bad one.

[John Smith]

I'd say Deepdale is one of the steepest I've been to in recent times. And I stood for the full 90 minutes on my last visit.

[Greatwesternline]

This is such a hypothetical argument.

The Government would have to change secondary legislation to enable all seater standing.

What would be their motivation to do it? Win a few votes of a few football fans.

What is the risk? A change in the rules leads to increased anti social behaviour, which would be scrutinised very carefully immediately after a change in the law. The Minister would get the abuse, media scrutiny, and consequential political storm of being the Minister who allowed the standing to return, and therefore was responsible for the increase in anti social behaviour.

Conclusion
There is very little political upside, there is a large political risk.

Its never going to happen.